I’m a bleeder, as they say in boxing circles. Maybe not on the level of Chuck “The Bayonne Bleeder” Wepner, but cut me and yes, I bleed. I tell you that, not because I’m climbing into the ring any time soon, but to underscore the sacrifices I make to reduce my carbon footprint—and save a few bucks at the same time.

For years, I bought into Gillette’s promise of “the best a man can get.” But like Muhammed Ali’s “Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee” fighting style, Gillette’s promise was always elusive. Mach3 mania gave way to Gillette Fusion, ProGlide, SkinGuard—et al, ad nauseam. One, two, three, four, FIVE blades? I finally got out of that arms race and retreated to the safety of a generic safety razor—bloodied yes, but unbowed.

Apparently, I’m not alone. Last month, P&G said it would take a $1.3 billion “impairment” charge related to Gillette. The brand has come under fire for years from D2C shaving brands and low-priced competitors.

Now, Gillette, and many other FMCG brands face another obstacle that is sure to cut into product development. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws are up for votes or on the books in many US states and countries around the world. EPR laws call for product manufacturers and importers to bear responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the production lifecycle. That includes upstream impacts inherent in the selection of materials for the products, impacts from manufacturers’ production process itself and downstream impacts from the use and disposal of the products.

Let’s face it—there’s nothing simpler to recycle than a single steel blade. In contrast, complex shaving systems are an amalgam of materials to be sorted, separated or, more likely, discarded.

Yes, manufacturers and trade associations like HCPA and ACI are working with regulators to reduce the impact of more regulation on their members. Still, EPR may deliver a knockout blow to overhyped, overpackaged consumer products.

Tom Branna
Chief Content Officer
tbranna@rodmanmedia.com