Shifting the cleanup cost of packaging waste to companies could encourage greener packaging – but only if states are aligned
Some state legislatures are seeking ways to alleviate anxieties about plastic waste. Rowanswiki/Wikimedia Commons Standing in your local retail store, it can be mind-boggling to try to weigh the pros and cons of all the packaging options.
Choosing packaging for everyday products like shampoo can feel overwhelming due to the variety of options available. Consumers may encounter claims such as recyclable, compostable, refillable, or made with recycled content, but these labels often lack clarity. The challenge extends to disposal, as recycling rules vary by local municipalities based on regional market capabilities. This inconsistency makes it difficult for individuals to make informed, environmentally friendly choices. The article highlights this confusion by referencing a viral video where comedian Jimmy Rees humorously illustrates the arbitrary nature of packaging decisions. The core issue lies in the fragmented system where neither producers nor consumers bear the full environmental or financial burden of packaging waste.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach based on the polluter pays principle, which holds that those responsible for creating pollution should cover the costs of managing it. In the context of packaging, EPR extends this responsibility to companies that produce goods, such as General Mills or PepsiCo, requiring them to fund and sometimes operate recycling systems for their packaging. The goal is to shift the financial burden of waste management from local taxpayers to the companies whose products generate the waste. EPR policies aim to incentivize companies to redesign packaging to reduce its environmental impact. Originating in Europe in the early 1990s, EPR has since been adopted in over 400 mandatory laws worldwide, covering products like packaging, cars, electronics, and textiles.
Under EPR policies, companies typically pay fees to a producer responsibility organization based on the amount and type of packaging material they sell. These organizations then use the collected funds to finance the collection, processing, and recycling of packaging waste. While EPR programs have improved recycling rates in some regions, they have been less effective at driving significant changes in packaging design. To address this, policymakers are experimenting with new mechanisms, such as eco-modulation, which adjusts fees based on specific design considerations. For example, companies using recycled materials in their packaging may pay lower fees, while those using labels that complicate recycling may face higher fees. This approach aims to encourage sustainable packaging choices.
In the United States, EPR policies are emerging at the state level rather than the national level, unlike the unified approach in the European Union. Since 2021, seven U.S. states have passed EPR laws to hold companies accountable for the packaging of their products. Over a dozen additional states are considering similar policies. This fragmented landscape creates challenges for companies, particularly large multinational corporations, which must navigate a patchwork of inconsistent regulations. The lack of standardization makes it difficult for companies to comply with varying rules and reduces the overall effectiveness of EPR policies. Policymakers are calling for more consistent goals, targets, and design incentives across states to improve compliance and environmental outcomes.
A recent survey of waste policy experts revealed differing opinions on the goals and structure of EPR policies. Some experts view EPR primarily as a tool to fund improvements in local recycling systems, while others argue that it must also reduce the environmental impact of packaging. The experts also prioritized different design changes, such as reducing litter through nondetachable bottle caps, promoting reusable packaging, or adopting bio-based or compostable materials. Without clear agreement on what constitutes sustainable packaging, regulations often rely on broad goals, such as requiring 100% of packaging to be recyclable or compostable. However, these goals do not always translate to reduced environmental impacts, as some materials labeled as recyclable or compostable may still have high ecological costs.
The inconsistent and fragmented nature of EPR policies across states creates significant challenges for companies, particularly large multinational corporations. These companies may treat compliance fees as a mere cost of doing business rather than an incentive to redesign packaging for sustainability. A more standardized approach to EPR policies could provide clearer signals to producers, encouraging them to adopt greener packaging designs. For example, switching to a compostable bottle might be rewarded in one state but penalized in another, creating confusion and inefficiency. Greater coordination among states could unlock the full potential of EPR policies by reducing compliance burdens and increasing their environmental impact.
