Seven-state packaging EPR test puts recycling accountability to work

By Elena Vasquez

Seven U.S. states have passed new packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, and most require producers to make packaging easier to recycle or redesign it with more recycled content.

At a Thursday virtual panel of the National Zero Waste Conference, speakers examined why vapes, textiles, batteries and other difficult materials still lack dependable pathways from collection to processing and end markets. Their answer: design, money and convenient participation must work together.

What does it take to recycle a difficult material?

Leslie Brooks, principal consultant at Kaizen Sustainability Solutions, said recyclers are practical problem-solvers who can recognize both the value and recovery potential of hard-to-recycle materials.

“The material can have value, and a technology can exist to recover it. Yet it can still end up disposed of,” she said.

Her practical test requires:

• A clear collection route;
• Processing capacity;
• An end market for recovered material; and
• Sufficient funding to support each step.

That distinction separates a material’s theoretical recyclability from an operating recovery system. Technology cannot overcome missing collection infrastructure, processing capacity, buyers or financing.

Product design sits at the center of that system, but speakers said design-for-recycling discussions have remained uneven among producers, recyclers and consumers.

Can EPR change producer behavior?

Justin Stockdale, owner of Recycled Revival consulting firm and a self-described “garbage nerd,” said a majority of U.S. packaging EPR programs are led by the product producers they regulate. He favors systems designed around consumer behavior and demand for longer-lasting, more recyclable products, which he says can drive manufacturer change.

His approach also requires realistic planning for how a difficult material will move through collection, processing and handling. Consumers can encounter drop-off programs that require long journeys, disposal fees or both.

Those access barriers can defeat a nominally available recovery option. A producer may fund a program, but the material still ends up in disposal if residents cannot use the system conveniently.

What must producer accountability deliver?

Joanne Brasch, assistant director of the California Product Stewardship Council, said recycling programs must combine consumer convenience with producer accountability.

“If we don’t hold the industry accountable, it’s just a bunch of money into collection and sorting,” Brasch said.

California already has experience regulating recovery systems for challenging materials such as pharmaceuticals and sharps. The council also helped lead the state’s recently passed textile EPR law, which requires producers to pay for end-of-life management of clothing and other items, including convenient reuse and repair options.

Implementation of the packaging EPR laws in seven states will show whether producer obligations produce practical design changes rather than collection and sorting activity alone. Their early results may also guide products outside packaging categories that laws do not require to use recyclable materials or easier-to-recycle elements.

Who pays for hard-to-recycle materials?

Speakers said difficult materials cost more to manage and that those costs need fair distribution among producers, consumers, local governments and other jurisdictions.

Brooks framed affordability as the dominant political concern but asked who receives that affordability. A balance favorable to producers does not necessarily protect local governments or the jurisdictions expected to manage discarded products.

Some producer groups have criticized EPR structures, warning that compliance costs will reach consumers through higher prices. Brasch said those concerns had not “penciled out” for producers of sharps and prescriptions covered by California law, which requires them to internalize the costs.

California’s mattress, carpet and paint stewardship programs take a different approach. Customers pay an upfront fee equal to 3% to 5% of the product price.

For a $100 product, that range equals a $3 to $5 fee.

For newer stewardship programs, including textiles and certain batteries, Brasch said the cost effects remain uncertain. Transparency about those fees will determine whether consumers and local governments understand who pays for collection and what financial burden they face.

What happens next?

The decisive milestone is implementation of the seven-state packaging EPR laws, alongside early disclosure of fees and responsibilities under California’s newer textile and battery stewardship programs. Those tests will show whether accountability moves beyond collection spending into product design, convenient recovery and durable end markets.

The next test is whether EPR implementation changes package design while California makes textile and battery fee impacts transparent.