Extended Producer Responsibility: A View from the States was the subject of a recent webinar produced by the Personal Care Products Council. EPR is a policy that requires manufacturers to take responsibility for end-of-life of products; implemented through public/private partnerships. There are three key principles to EPR: responsibility shifting, improve recycling and improve waste reduction strategies. As a result, there is a large set of implementation challenges for packaging EPR, according to PCPC webinar presenters.

“Sustainability is no longer a nice-to-have; it is part of doing business,” said Tesia Williams, EVP-public affairs & communications, PCPC, in her opening remarks to attendees. “EPR has critical implications for our industry. It effects how we design and package products, and report and comply with laws in different states.”

PCPC’s Kathleen Stanton, senior director, scientific & regulatory affairs, moderated the session. It included presentations by Catherine Johnson, principal, Environmental General Counsel PC and managing director, EPR Group Consulting; Allyn Stern, principal, Beveridge & Diamond; and Michael Washburn, principal, Washburn Consulting: Sustainability & Public Affairs.

Speakers addressed a range of issues including current state programs and requirements, industry challenges and implementation, and global context and future developments.

Patchwork Regulations

With no federal laws in place regarding EPR, there is a patchwork of regulations. Stern noted that seven states currently have EPR regulations, all of them slightly different. More states are expected to roll out their own EPR programs. Here’s a look at packaging EPR by state:

California: Single-use packaging, plastic food service materials;

Colorado: Packaging, some paper;

Maryland: Packaging, some paper;

Maine: Packaging;

Minnesota: Packaging, some paper;

Oregon: Packaging, some paper, plastic food service materials; and

Washington: Packaging, some paper.

To ensure regulatory compliance, producers must join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). If they don’t, they violate state EPR rules. Other producer violations include failure to properly report covered materials and failure to pay fees. Stern reviewed the mechanism of enforcement which include audits from state of PRO and producers. Self-policing strategies pay producers to find non-compliant producers.

“States enforce EPR, but the PRO identifies non-compliant companies,” said Stern, who noted Oregon is already sending out letters to non-compliant companies. “Right now, the states are being lenient because the program is just getting on their legs. But things will be stricter in the future.”

The registration and reporting deadlines are as follows:

As states move ahead with EPR programs, legal challenges are emerging. For example, there is a challenge to the constitutionality of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act. Plaintiffs maintain it delegates control to a private party and unfairly targets out-of-state producers and disrupts national markets. Furthermore, it mandates producers sign with a PRO and waive certain rights and sets fees and other requirements without opportunity to object or appeal.

Industry Challenges

Johnson focused on the challenges companies face when implementing EPR.

“There’s too little time, too much information, and lack of consistency in programs,” she explained. “It really is a team effort. EPR is too much for any one person to handle and too much information to absorb.”

But the biggest headache may be the lack of consistency among programs. While they share similar frameworks, there are significant nuances.

“One company figured they faced $1 million in fees as a producer,” recalled Johnson. “As it turns out, they weren’t the producer! In your rush to comply and get it off your desk, watch the details!”

She told attendees a successful EPR program has three critical points:

1. Basic understanding of programs and cooperation needed across different departments;
2. A system in place for monitoring new developments; and
3. Careful documentation required to comply with record-keeping requirements and claim credit for eco-modulated fee.

But at the same time, the very nature of cosmetic packaging presents three challenges for companies and their suppliers:

1. Small format and multi-material packaging;
2. Inadequate supply of PCR for packaging; and
3. New operational expenses.

At the same time, EPR requirements present opportunities such as reduced material shipping expenses through source reduction. Targeted sustainability claims present less legal risk and build brand loyalty with less greenwashing. Finally, packaging redesign can present competitive advantages.

“Younger generations love cosmetics and care about sustainability,” noted Johnson.

EPR in the EU

Washburn’s presentation focused on extended producer responsibility in Canada, the European Union and other parts of the world. He noted the EU has been working to reduce packaging waste for decades. The 1994 Packaging Waste Directive introduced EPR principles across the EU. The EPR structure is changing and will now be governed by the proposed PPWR—which entered into force on February 11, 2025.

The PPWR introduces harmonized obligations across Member States, including:

• Eco-modulated fees based on recyclability performance;

• A requirement that non-recyclable packaging be phased out by 2030; and

• Minimum recycled content and new design-for-recycling rules.

But the EU’s focus includes new proposals that would expand the scope of EPR. They may include advanced recycling, regulating chemicals in packaging, source reduction, material bans and PCR content requirements.

“(The additions) add to complexity, add to the issues for companies and trade issues,” said Washburn.

He warned attendees that compliance is not just a data exercise. It must include a responsibility matrix (RACI), compliance scoping, data preparation and reporting, forecasting and budgeting for total exposure and socialization with C-suite.

“The CEO needs to know what is going on,” said Washburn. “You can’t just bring fees up at a meeting. Engage leadership!”