Similar laws worldwide have led to 75 percent reduction in recycled plastics
The United States generates more than 40 million tons of plastic waste a year, but just 5% of that is recycled. That is about to change. In less than a year Oregon will become the first state in the U.S. to implement a series of laws known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). The laws fundamentally shift the responsibility for funding recycling systems from local governments to the plastic makers. The law’s fee structures are designed to incentivize producers to make packaging that minimizes waste and environmental impacts and improves recyclability.
Worldwide, EPR regimes have resulted in dramatic reductions in recycled waste, and ultimately producing more plastic. A study by The Recycling Partnership found that EPR policies in seven jurisdictions worldwide, including British Columbia, Belgium, Spain, South Korea, and the Netherlands, have driven recycling rates to over 75% for packaging materials.
Municipalities have been footing the bill for the last three decades, said Kate Davenport, chief policy officer at the Recycling Partnership. “Their budgets are tight, and the cost of recycling has gone up… [they] cannot keep holding this burden.”
8.3 billion tons of plastic waste litter the earth
Oregon joins governments worldwide who are embracing this kind of legislation because of its promising impact on waste reduction and recycling. In the coming years multiple states will implement such regulations: Colorado and Maine’s EPR laws go into effect in 2026, followed by California’s law in 2027 and Minnesota’s in 2029. Meanwhile, close to a dozen other states have EPR bills in the works.
“This is happening. This is real. This is coming, and it’s evolving quickly,” said Megan Daum, vice president, sustainability at the American Beverage Association, during a breakout session at Circularity 24.
And not a minute too soon. Since the 1950s, over 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic have been produced, with 6.3 billion metric tons becoming plastic waste.
Not surprisingly, plastic manufacturers have fought EPR laws. The industry has been accused of waging a decades long, multibillion disinformation campaign, claiming that post-consumer plastics can be recycled into valuable new products. Industry groups have lobbied heavily against EPR bills. The National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) has advocated for incentivizing investment in domestic recycling to strengthen markets instead. In California, the Consumer Brands Association, representing companies like Procter & Gamble and General Mills, criticized the EPR bill stating that creating a localized policy would be cost-prohibitive for the industry and was not “scalable”.
EPR success around the world
Despite opposition, EPR systems are leading to significant improvements in recycling rates and waste management. A study found that EPR policies in seven jurisdictions worldwide have driven recycling rates to over 75% for packaging materials.
The European Union has implemented regulations aiming to increase recycling rates to at least 65% by 2030, with many countries achieving rates over 60%. The study suggests that implementing EPR programs in U.S. states could increase recycling rates by as much as 48 percentage points
In the U.S., most states will require producers to pay fees to fund collection, sorting and processing of packaging; education and outreach activities; infrastructure improvements; and verification and development of end markets for recycled materials.
To do this EPR laws require producers to join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) which are responsible for developing a program plan to meet the law’s requirements. State-appointed advisory boards and regulatory agencies must approve the plans.
Oregon’s PRO, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), is a nonprofit, producer-led organization established by 20 food, beverage and consumer goods companies. It is also the designated PRO under Colorado’s and California’s laws.
Producers need to register so that CAA can develop accurate and fair fee schedules for Oregon and reduce the number of free riders, Charlie Schwarze, senior director of sustainability at Keurig Dr Pepper and the chair of CAA’s national board of directors, said at Circularity 24, hosted by GreenBiz in Chicago in May.
“This is happening. This is real. This is coming, and it’s evolving quickly.”
Determine your liability
Each state has different rules for who must comply with the law. Companies need to work with their legal teams to determine whether they are an “obligated producer” under each statute, said Schwarze. CAA cannot make that determination.
“We will help push you along through the process because we know this is complicated for every producer,” he said.
CAA is not yet charging membership fees, and producers that sign up gain access to its meetings and educational resources.
Get your data in order
For Oregon, CAA will require producers to report on their 2024 sales in the first quarter of 2025, and it expects to issue a fee schedule based on that data in June 2025, said Barker.
Oregon plans to finalize its list of reporting categories for material type and packaging format by the end of July. Beginning in September, CAA will focus on providing producers the guidance they need to prepare their data for reporting next year, said Olivia Barker, stakeholder engagement and communications director at CAA.
For producers that struggle with capturing and assembling data, getting company-wide buy-in and investment to solidify a database can be a lengthy and arduous process. “Start working on that right now,” said Schwarze.
As data and reporting improve, the fee schedule will ratchet up incentives for packaging that is more recyclable, compostable or reusable.
Move to reusable packaging
All five bills that have passed include some reuse component, although rulemaking hasn’t been finalized in most states, said Sydney Harris, policy director at Upstream. California has reuse targets; Maine is setting targets through rulemaking and Minnesota will set statewide reuse targets that are not specific to individual brands or product types.
“‘[Reusable packaging] will get you the biggest advantage in terms of the fees you pay and the benefits you reap in the laws.”
“Start considering reusable packaging very seriously,” Harris said. “It will get you the biggest advantage in terms of the fees you pay and the benefits you reap in the laws.”
In Minnesota and Oregon, fees apply only once for each reusable package, “so every time you recirculate that package, you’re getting to do that for free,” she said.
Harris’s other suggestions:
- Pick a few packaging types that are already fairly standard;
- Brand them collectively as returnable packaging; and
- Process their recovery through the existing recycling system. Companies will need to work out a system for cleaning and reclaiming the packaging.
‘Our moonshot’
Today only 59 percent of households with access to recycling participate in the system.
“We need to be empathetic in our messaging and we need to reestablish that trust that when you put something in the cart, it’s going to get turned into something else and have that environmental benefit,” said Davenport. The data that CAA is collecting is the start of that, she added. “We need traceability through the system to prove that we’re having an impact, that’s part of building the trust of consumers.”
Finally, companies in states with EPR laws should avoid looking at EPR through the lens of quarterly returns. “This is the investment that needs to be made to switch to a circular economy,” said Davenport. “This is our moonshot as a generation.”
This article originally appeared on GreenBiz.com as part of our partnership with GreenBiz Group, a media and events company that accelerates the just transition to a clean economy.
