Extended producer responsibility (EPR) mandates for packaging are on the way, and I have two words of advice for packaging companies in 2024: Get prepared.

Four states – California, Colorado, Maine, and Oregon – already have EPR laws on the books. Nearly a dozen other states considered EPR legislation in 2023, and more are certain to follow in 2024. The regulations for these newly established EPR programs are still emerging, but statewide collection lists and performance goals are starting to form for various packaging attributes (recyclability, recycled content, source reduction) and materials (glass, paper, plastics, metals). We know that producers will have to join and report specific data to a producer responsibility organization (PRO).

It’s in the best interest of all packaging companies to begin assessing and verifying their own data systems now to ensure they are prepared when EPR reporting requirements take effect in the states in which they sell covered packaging materials. Under the current laws, Colorado and Oregon producers must begin reporting in 2025, producers in Maine will start in 2026, and California producers will be obligated in 2027.

Brands will be the primary producer reporter in most systems, but converters will likely be asked to supply brand owners with data on their packaging stock-keeping units (SKUs). It makes good sense to start compiling SKU information about:

• Materials used, including the types and percentages of materials such as paper, plastic, metal, glass, etc. This will help ensure accurate product classification, transparency and streamlined waste management and also help producers pay the right fee amounts to the PRO and avoid potential penalties.
• Weight of each material used. This helps determine logistics and potential recycling costs.
• Volume of packaging units sold, which helps estimate the potential waste stream.
• Source reduction efforts such as elimination of packaging materials and components, use of post-consumer recycled (PCR) content, reuse, etc. By prioritizing source reduction, producers can reduce the volume of waste they manage and potentially lower their EPR fees.

Because EPR fees very likely will be set by material and weight, ensuring you are reporting the correct information can help reduce errors and save significant dollars. A small mistake, such as claiming corrugated when you meant paperboard or referencing the wrong weight per material rather than the package as a whole, can have a significant impact on fees paid. Preparation in advance could be very cost effective.

While state-by-state implementation and regulations remain in flux, it’s clear that all four states must include eco-modulation as a component of their EPR programs. This financial incentive structure is designed to encourage companies to use more environmentally friendly packaging materials and designs, whereby companies may pay lower or higher fees based on their packaging’s environmental impact. While the California, Colorado, and Oregon laws all require PROs to develop and incorporate eco-modulation into their producer fee schedules, the Maine law requires the state to do that.  Other states – including New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey – are considering eco-modulation fees as part of proposed legislation, but final decisions are yet to come. 

Companies using packaging materials that are difficult to recycle, have large environmental footprints, or contain harmful chemicals may pay higher fees. Those that use recyclable packaging materials or PCR content, or have smaller environmental footprints, are likely to pay lower fees under eco-modulation rules. Factors affecting those fees could include:

• Percentage of PCR content
• Use of recycling, recyclable claims, and labels
• Source reduction (what percentage of the packaging has been reduced)
• Percentage of packaging portfolio that is reusable. This primarily applies to brands and refers to primary and secondary versus tertiary (transit) packaging.
• Reduction of toxics in packaging

These packaging attributes are not always captured in packaging management software, so additional preparation may be required to ensure you are tracking correctly at the SKU level.

Packaging companies that adapt their products to eco-modulate their fees downward may well reap other benefits in terms of meeting PCR content mandates and other potential packaging reporting requirements emerging in various state EPR or other packaging policy laws. 

While some states are working to harmonize reporting needs, companies should be prepared for differences, especially when it comes to eco-modulation among states as well as report formats. Now is the time to plan, prepare, test, and staff for this additional workload. Companies that need help navigating the sometimes-complex new EPR mandates may opt to hire specialty consulting firms to help guide compliance, but we’re also hearing from brands that report globally that it’s possible to do this in-house with dedicated staff and systems.

Recognizing the challenges associated with current and future EPR mandates, AMERIPEN will launch a second EPR webinar series in 2024 to help educate packaging professionals on how to plan and prepare. Please check back on our website in mid-January for more information and to register. With proper preparation, our industry will be able to adapt to EPR mandates as painlessly as possible.