EPR in the US: Why Packaging Choices are Becoming a Bigger Business Decision 

The packaging regulatory landscape in the United States is changing quickly. Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, is shifting more of the cost and accountability for packaging recovery from municipalities to the companies that place packaging on the market. For brands, that means packaging design is no longer just an operational efficiency, sustainability or customer experience question. It’s increasingly a compliance, data and cost-management issue too. 

What is EPR and why is it being implemented? 

EPR is a policy approach that makes producers financially and operationally responsible for the packaging they sell after it has been used. In practice, producers typically register with a producer responsibility organization, report packaging volumes and materials placed on the market, and pay fees that help fund collection, sorting, recycling infrastructure, education and administration. 

The aim is to improve recycling outcomes by connecting packaging design more directly to end-of-life costs. Materials that are easier to identify, sort and recycle generally attract lower fees, while materials that are harder to recover, more likely to contaminate recycling streams or less widely accepted may carry higher costs. This creates a financial incentive for brands to design packaging that works better in recycling systems. 

Example 2006 material fees   

	Colorado	Oregon
Paperboard	8.0 ¢/lb.	8.0 ¢/lb.
PET Thermoformed Containers, Cups, Plates, Trays	57.0 ¢/lb.	57.0 ¢/lb.
Other/Mixed Rigid Plastic	78 ¢/lb.	97 ¢/lb.
Flexible Plastic	48 ¢/lb.	43 ¢/lb.

As a general principle, fee structures tend to reflect the cost and complexity of recovering a material. Fiber-based packaging, such as paperboard, is often positioned favorably because it is widely understood to be recyclable by consumers and widely collected within existing recycling systems. Plastics can face higher fees where sorting, contamination, limited end markets, resin color, format complexity or recyclability limitations increase system costs. 

What challenges is EPR posing to brands? 

For many brands, the first challenge is data. EPR requires companies to understand exactly what packaging they place on the market, where it is sold, what each component is made from and how much it weighs. For large portfolios, that means gathering accurate packaging data across SKUs, suppliers, regions and business units, then mapping it to different state reporting categories. 

The second challenge is cost exposure. EPR turns packaging end-of-life into a visible line item, and those costs may vary significantly by material and state. Brands need to forecast fee impacts, identify high-cost packaging formats and decide whether redesign, material Changes or lightweighting could reduce long-term exposure. 

The third challenge is timing. Regulations are evolving quickly, and producers may have to make design, procurement and compliance decisions before every implementation detail is finalized. That puts pressure on packaging, legal, sustainability, finance and procurement teams to work together earlier and more closely than before. 

Additional complexity: California SB 54 and New Jersey recycled content law  

California’s SB 54 is one of the most significant packaging EPR laws in the US. It establishes an EPR program for single-use packaging and plastic foodservice packaging, with producer registration, reporting and fee obligations, as well as long-term performance targets. By 2032, covered packaging must be reusable, recyclable or compostable, alongside targets for plastic reduction and recovery rates. 

For many brands, SB 54 adds a strategic packaging design challenge. It is not only about paying fees; it is about demonstrating progress against material reductions, recyclability, compostability and reporting requirements. California’s wider packaging rules, including recyclability labelling restrictions, may also require brands to review on-pack symbols and claims to help ensure compliance.

Key requirements:

• By 2032, packaging must support 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable outcomes and claims 
• 65% recycling target for covered single-use plastic packaging and foodservice packaging by 2032 
• 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging compared with 2023 baseline. 

New Jersey’s recycled content law creates a different, but related, pressure point. The law sets post-consumer recycled (PCR) content requirements for certain regulated containers and packaging products sold or offered for sale in New Jersey, including rigid plastic containers, plastic beverage containers, glass containers, paper and plastic carryout bags, and plastic trash bags. Rigid plastic containers must contain 10% PCR starting in 2024, increasing by 10 percentage points every 3 years until reaching 50%. 

For rigid plastic containers and other regulated formats, this may create practical sourcing challenges, especially where for example, pharmaceutical-grade post-consumer recycled material is limited, costly or difficult to qualify. Non-compliance can also carry significant financial penalties, making recycled content strategy a commercial and legal consideration as well as a sustainability priority. 

How paperboard packaging can help 

Ready to explore your options? 

As EPR requirements evolve, now is the time to review your packaging portfolio and identify where paperboard could help reduce complexity, support recyclability goals, and strengthen total value. Speak to our team to explore packaging solutions designed for today’s market and tightening recycling requirements.