Sustainability Atlas
Circular Economy·12 min read··...

Interview: practitioners on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) — what they wish they knew earlier

A practitioner conversation: what surprised them, what failed, and what they'd do differently. Focus on KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what 'good' looks like in practice.

In 2021, Maine became the first U.S. state to enact comprehensive packaging EPR legislation. By January 2026, seven states have followed suit—covering approximately 272 million Americans, or roughly one in five residents nationwide. This rapid policy acceleration has caught many brand owners, packaging suppliers, and sustainability teams off guard. We spoke with practitioners across the CPG, retail, and waste management sectors to understand what metrics actually matter, where benchmark targets should land, and what separates organizations that are thriving under EPR from those scrambling to comply.

Why It Matters

Extended Producer Responsibility fundamentally reshapes the economics of packaging and product design by shifting end-of-life costs from municipalities and taxpayers to the brands that introduce materials into commerce. For North American sustainability leaders, this represents the most significant regulatory shift in a generation.

The numbers underscore the urgency. As of 2025, seven U.S. states have enacted comprehensive packaging EPR laws: Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. California alone expects to collect $500 million annually from producers starting in 2027, with penalties reaching up to $50,000 per day for non-compliance. Oregon has already begun fee collection as of July 2025, with average costs running $615 per metric ton of packaging placed on market—ranging from $249 for health and wellness products to $801 for pet products depending on material complexity.

In Canada, provincial EPR transitions are reaching final implementation stages, with Quebec completing its unified Blue Box system covering residential, public, and institutional waste generators by year-end 2025. Ontario's full producer responsibility program launches in 2026.

The practitioner consensus is clear: reactive approaches are no longer viable. Organizations that began preparing in 2023 are now seeing 40-60% lower compliance costs compared to those starting in 2025, primarily through early packaging redesign and data infrastructure investments.

Key Concepts

Understanding EPR requires fluency in several interconnected concepts that practitioners consistently identified as critical to success:

Regulatory Risk encompasses the probability and potential impact of non-compliance across multiple jurisdictions. Practitioners emphasized that risk assessment must account for the patchwork nature of U.S. EPR—each state has distinct definitions of "producer," covered materials, and exemption thresholds. A company exempt in Colorado (revenue <$5 million) may face full obligations in California. Leading organizations maintain rolling risk registers updated quarterly as regulations evolve.

Standards and Eco-Modulation refer to the fee structures that incentivize sustainable packaging choices. Under eco-modulation frameworks, producers pay lower fees for packaging that meets recyclability standards and higher fees for hard-to-recycle materials. California's program, for instance, will impose significant fee differentials between easily recyclable materials and problematic formats like flexible films or multi-material laminates. Practitioners report that understanding eco-modulation early enabled 15-25% fee reductions through proactive redesign.

Transition Planning describes the multi-year roadmap for achieving compliance across packaging portfolios. Effective transition plans integrate R&D timelines, supplier qualification periods, and regulatory milestone dates. Practitioners stressed that transition plans failing to account for 18-24 month packaging qualification cycles consistently resulted in emergency scrambles and premium costs.

Operational Expenditure (OPEX) in EPR contexts includes ongoing compliance costs: registration fees, data management systems, third-party verification, and Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) membership dues. Practitioners benchmarked steady-state OPEX at 0.3-0.8% of packaging spend for well-prepared organizations, rising to 1.5-2.5% for those implementing reactive programs.

Unit Economics describes the per-SKU cost allocation methodology required for accurate fee calculation. California's program requires reporting across 94+ packaging categories with granular material breakdowns. Organizations lacking SKU-level packaging data reported 3-6 month delays in compliance readiness and 20-40% higher initial fee estimates due to conservative assumptions.

EPR KPI Benchmarks: What Good Looks Like

KPILaggingBaselineLeadingTop Decile
Time to compliance readiness>18 months12-18 months6-12 months<6 months
Data accuracy (material weight)<70%70-85%85-95%>95%
Packaging recyclability rate<40%40-60%60-80%>80%
EPR fee as % of packaging cost>2.0%1.0-2.0%0.5-1.0%<0.5%
SKU-level data coverage<50%50-75%75-95%>95%
Eco-modulation optimizationNonePartialSystematicContinuous
Compliance cost per $1M revenue>$15,000$8,000-15,000$4,000-8,000<$4,000

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Centralized PRO partnerships through Circular Action Alliance (CAA) have emerged as the dominant compliance pathway. CAA serves as the designated PRO across California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, and Maryland, providing regulatory continuity and reduced administrative burden. Practitioners working with CAA reported 30-50% lower transaction costs compared to managing multi-PRO relationships, with single-point registration and harmonized reporting formats across jurisdictions.

Integrated compliance platforms such as rePurpose Global have demonstrated significant efficiency gains. Organizations using automated EPR software reduced compliance timelines from 2+ months to approximately two weeks, with single-platform fees covering current and future state obligations. The platform approach proved especially valuable for companies operating across 5+ EPR jurisdictions simultaneously.

Proactive packaging redesign programs yielded the strongest long-term returns. Practitioners who initiated material simplification in 2023—transitioning from multi-material laminates to mono-material structures, eliminating problematic colorants, and right-sizing packaging—achieved 15-30% fee reductions under eco-modulation frameworks while simultaneously reducing material costs. The redesign investment typically paid back within 18-24 months through combined fee and material savings.

What Isn't Working

Fragmented data systems remain the most cited compliance barrier. Organizations with packaging specifications scattered across ERP systems, supplier databases, and spreadsheets consistently missed registration deadlines and submitted inaccurate weight declarations. Practitioners estimated that data remediation projects added 4-8 months and $200,000-500,000 to compliance timelines for mid-sized CPG companies.

Underestimating state-by-state variation created significant compliance gaps. Despite surface similarities, each state's EPR law contains distinct producer definitions, de minimis thresholds, covered materials, and exemption categories. Organizations that developed "one-size-fits-all" compliance strategies discovered material gaps during registration, requiring emergency legal review and program redesign. California's 94-category reporting schema versus Oregon's simpler structure exemplifies this variation.

Delayed supplier engagement proved costly for brands relying on contract manufacturers or co-packers. EPR compliance requires detailed packaging specifications that many suppliers were unprepared to provide. Practitioners reported 6-12 month delays waiting for supplier data, with some relationships requiring contractual renegotiation to include EPR data obligations. Early supplier communication—ideally 18+ months before compliance deadlines—emerged as a critical success factor.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the nonprofit PRO founded by major packaging producers and designated across five U.S. states. CAA handles producer registration, fee collection, data reporting, and program implementation, serving as the primary compliance interface for most brands.

Waste Management, Inc. provides collection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure that EPR programs ultimately fund and expand. Their Material Recovery Facility network positions them as key beneficiaries of increased producer funding.

Republic Services operates extensive recycling infrastructure across North America and has expanded offerings to include EPR compliance consulting and data services for producer clients.

Tetra Pak has led packaging redesign efforts with fully recyclable carton solutions and transparent material declarations, positioning their customers for favorable eco-modulation treatment.

Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) provides industry education, policy tracking, and stakeholder collaboration through their EPR Collaborative, offering monthly policy updates and compliance guidance.

Emerging Startups

rePurpose Global offers automated EPR compliance software covering 45+ regulations, enabling brands to centralize supply data and harmonize multi-state reporting through a single platform.

EcoEnclose helps brands redesign packaging to eliminate banned materials (polystyrene, PVC, PFAS), increase post-consumer recycled content, and achieve compliance with 2026-2027 requirements.

Recycleye deploys AI-powered sorting technology at Material Recovery Facilities, improving material identification accuracy and supporting the infrastructure investments EPR programs fund.

Digimarc provides digital watermarking technology enabling packaging identification at end-of-life, supporting the traceability requirements increasingly embedded in EPR regulations.

CleanHub offers plastic credit and tracking solutions helping brands meet EPR-adjacent plastic neutrality commitments while building verification infrastructure.

Key Investors & Funders

Closed Loop Partners leads circular economy investment with $510 million AUM across venture, private equity, and catalytic credit strategies. Their portfolio includes 90+ investments across recycling infrastructure, material recovery, and packaging innovation.

Circulate Capital focuses on waste management and circular economy infrastructure in South and Southeast Asia, with backing from PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Danone, and Unilever.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures has invested in materials and recycling technologies supporting EPR infrastructure, including advanced sorting and chemical recycling ventures.

The Recycling Partnership provides grant funding and technical assistance for municipal recycling infrastructure, complementing the producer-funded investments EPR programs direct.

Prelude Ventures has backed circular economy startups including packaging innovation and material recovery technology companies positioned to benefit from EPR-driven investment flows.

Examples

Oregon's First Fee Cycle (2025): Oregon became the first U.S. state to collect EPR fees in July 2025, with producers paying based on 2024 packaging data submitted by March 31, 2025. Initial fee rates averaged $615 per metric ton, with penalties reaching $25,000 per day for non-registration. Early participants reported registration completion in 2-3 weeks using CAA's portal, while late registrants faced 6-8 week backlogs and expedited legal review costs. The program expects to generate $150-200 million annually for recycling infrastructure investment.

California SB 54 Implementation (2025-2027): California's Plastic Pollution Prevention Act requires the most complex compliance of any U.S. state, with August 2025 registration opening and January 2027 fee commencement. CalRecycle regulations mandate 94-category material reporting with weight accuracy requirements. Leading brands began data collection in 2023, enabling 2025 registration with verified data. Organizations starting in 2025 reported average data remediation costs of $300,000-750,000 for companies with 1,000+ SKUs. The program targets 100% recyclable or compostable packaging by 2032 with a 65% recycling rate.

Colorado Producer Registration (2024-2025): Colorado required producer registration by October 1, 2024, with supply data reporting due July 31, 2025. The state's previous 15% recycling rate—among the lowest nationally—drove legislative urgency. CAA, designated as Colorado's PRO, processed over 2,500 producer registrations in the program's first year. Practitioners noted Colorado's relatively generous de minimis exemptions provided relief for small producers while maintaining major brand accountability.

Action Checklist

  • Audit current packaging portfolio for material composition, weight, and recyclability at SKU level
  • Register with Circular Action Alliance or state-designated PRO 6+ months before compliance deadlines
  • Implement centralized packaging data management system with supplier integration capabilities
  • Assess packaging portfolio against eco-modulation criteria and prioritize redesign opportunities
  • Engage contract manufacturers and co-packers on EPR data obligations with contractual updates
  • Develop 3-year transition plan aligned with state-specific regulatory milestones
  • Budget for ongoing OPEX at 0.5-1.5% of packaging spend depending on portfolio complexity
  • Establish cross-functional EPR working group spanning sustainability, procurement, legal, and finance
  • Monitor legislation in non-EPR states (Illinois, New York, New Jersey) for early preparation
  • Conduct annual compliance audit with third-party verification before reporting deadlines

FAQ

Q: What defines a "producer" under EPR regulations, and how do I know if my company is obligated? A: Producer definitions vary by state but generally follow a hierarchy: brand owners bear primary responsibility, followed by licensees, importers, distributors, and finally retailers as catch-alls. Companies that manufacture, import, or sell packaged products into EPR states typically qualify as producers. De minimis exemptions exist—Colorado exempts companies under $5 million annual revenue, while California's thresholds vary by category. Legal review against each applicable state's definition is essential, as obligations can arise even for companies without physical presence in-state.

Q: How do eco-modulation fees work, and can packaging redesign meaningfully reduce costs? A: Eco-modulation adjusts producer fees based on packaging sustainability characteristics. Materials meeting recyclability standards (e.g., mono-material structures, standard resin types, minimal contamination risk) receive lower fee rates, while problematic formats (flexible films, multi-layer laminates, dark plastics, PFAS-containing materials) face premium fees. Oregon's fee structure shows differentials up to 3x between categories. Practitioners report 15-30% fee reductions achievable through systematic redesign, with payback periods of 18-24 months when combined with material cost savings.

Q: What data systems and capabilities do we need for compliance? A: Effective EPR compliance requires SKU-level packaging specifications including: material type and weight, dimensions, recyclability classification, plastic content percentage, post-consumer recycled content, colorants and additives, and supplier information. Most organizations need data management platforms that integrate with ERP systems and supplier portals. California's 94-category reporting schema represents the complexity ceiling—systems should be built to this standard. Practitioners recommend platforms like rePurpose Global or similar purpose-built solutions over spreadsheet-based approaches.

Q: How should we allocate budget for EPR compliance? A: Initial implementation typically requires $250,000-750,000 for mid-sized CPG companies, covering data remediation, system implementation, legal review, and organizational change management. Ongoing OPEX includes PRO membership and fees (0.3-1.5% of packaging spend depending on portfolio), data management and verification ($50,000-150,000 annually), and legal/regulatory monitoring ($25,000-75,000 annually). Total steady-state costs for well-prepared organizations run $4,000-8,000 per million dollars of revenue. Organizations starting late should budget 50-100% premiums for expedited implementation.

Q: What's the timeline for EPR expansion, and which states are next? A: Hawaii enacted needs assessment legislation in May 2025 with a report due by end of 2027, typically preceding full EPR. Rhode Island passed an assessment bill in June 2025. Illinois has an advisory council with recommendations due December 2025, targeting 65% plastic recycling by 2035. New York's EPR bills stalled in 2025 but are expected to return. Massachusetts introduced S 571 in 2025. Practitioners recommend monitoring states with active legislation and building compliance capabilities assuming 2-3 new states annually through 2028.

Sources

Topics

extendedproducerriskstandardstransition planopexunit economics

Related Articles