We are hearing that several states are adopting Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation. How will this affect our company?

Hi Sarah, thank you for your question.

Several states are adopting legislation designed to reduce plastic waste, increase recycled content requirements, and impose fees on certain types of single-use plastic packaging sold within their borders. Because the specifics vary by state, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer. However, I can provide some background on why these laws are being implemented and offer guidance on how to minimize their impact on your business.

Let’s start with some context.

Recycling plastic is nothing new. Most of us have been placing recyclable materials in blue bins for years, believing we were helping the environment, and in many ways, we were. However, the economics behind plastic recycling have long been challenging.

Historically, recycling centers that collected and processed materials struggled financially because the business model was difficult to sustain. Recycling material is more expensive than producing new product. Materials must be collected, sorted, processed, and transported to manufacturers capable of using recycled content.

For plastics specifically, recycled resin often behaves differently than virgin resin. The recycled resin does not melt at the same temperature, nor does it have the same elastic properties as virgin resin. This means that products made with recycled materials are not only more expensive, but also, have reduced performance compared to products made from virgin materials. As a result, recycled-content products have often faced a difficult tradeoff between cost and performance.

This creates a classic Catch-22. Products that can tolerate lower performance tend to be highly cost-sensitive, while products that require premium performance are less likely to incorporate significant amounts of recycled content. Although consumers generally support recycling in principle, they have historically been reluctant to accept higher costs or reduced performance.

A well-known example was Sun Chips’ introduction of a bio-based (PLA) packaging film. While environmentally innovative, it was far more expensive than traditional packaging and consumers did not like the way it felt or performed. The issue received widespread attention and even made the front page of the Wall Street Journal (on a slow news day), because people complained it was too noisy. After that, the packaging was quietly transitioned back to OPP.

Now, let’s return to recycling infrastructure.

For many years, a significant portion of recyclable materials collected in the United States was exported to China. There, the materials were processed and incorporated into a wide range of manufactured goods. However, as China’s domestic consumption and recycling capabilities expanded, the country implemented restrictions on imported recyclable materials.

This created a major challenge. Suddenly, large volumes of recyclable plastic were being collected without sufficient domestic processing capacity or end-market demand. While recycling technology has continued to improve and the performance of some recycled-content materials has advanced significantly, the United States still faces infrastructure gaps in collection, sorting, and processing.

This is where Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) enters the picture.

In simple terms, EPR programs shift part of the financial responsibility for managing packaging waste from municipalities and taxpayers to producers. Under many EPR frameworks, producers pay fees based on the amount and type of packaging they introduce into a state. These fees are typically administered by a designated stewardship organization or third-party entity.

The goal is to generate funding for improved recycling infrastructure, collection programs, and waste management systems. While many implementation details, including fee structures, reporting requirements, and compliance processes are still evolving, one thing is clear: EPR is becoming a reality in multiple states, and additional states are likely to follow.

So, what can companies do to minimize the impact?

The most effective strategy is straightforward: reduce the amount of plastic you use.

The cheapest pound of plastic is the one you never have to purchase, transport, manage, or pay EPR fees on. Every pound eliminated from your packaging system can reduce material costs, freight costs, and future regulatory expenses.

Our load containment technologies can deliver up to 3 times the load containment performance while using about half the amount you would with conventional stretch film. They also help eliminate costly and disruptive web breaks during wrapping.

The result is a combination of benefits. You will save on your annual film spend, improve your load containment, increase line throughput, cut your consumption in half, and reduce EPR fees while also meeting their plastic reduction requirements.

At the end of the day, the most sustainable and cost-effective plastic is often the plastic you never use. By applying science and engineering principles, it is possible to achieve better performance while using significantly less material.

Thanks for asking!

STEVE