This policy could encourage companies to use greener packaging, but states need to be aligned

Imagine standing in a grocery store, overwhelmed by the array of packaging choices. Shampoo bottles, tubes, metal cans, and paper boxes flood the shelves, each with sustainability claims that can confuse even the most eco-conscious consumer. The "packaging guy" video from comedian Jimmy Rees showcases the arbitrary nature of these design decisions.

Navigating environmentally friendly or socially responsible purchases can be daunting, as product packaging showcases a myriad of sustainability claims such as recyclable, compostable, refillable, made with recycled content, carbon or plastic-neutral, cruelty-free, fair trade, and more. Disposing of empty packaging presents its own set of challenges, as the recyclability and compostability of materials is determined at the local municipal level based on regional recycling and compost markets.

Enter the policy approach known as extended producer responsibility (EPR), gaining traction in the United States as a potential solution. EPR policies, rooted in the "polluter pays" principle, shift responsibility onto producers for managing the pollution they generate. These policies target large companies like General Mills and PepsiCo, compelling them to bear the cost of recycling systems and potentially redesign their packaging to minimize environmental impact.

Originating in Europe in the early 1990s, EPR has gained widespread adoption, with over 400 mandatory EPR laws governing various products like packaging, cars, electronics, batteries, textiles, and more. Under EPR, producers pay fees based on the amount and type of packaging material sold, which fund the collection and processing of packaging materials for recycling.

However, the implementation of EPR policies in the United States is still nascent, confined to state-level regulations. Since 2021, seven states have enacted EPR laws, while over a dozen are considering similar legislation. This fragmented approach to EPR across the U.S. has led to calls for standardization, aiming to simplify compliance for companies and enhance overall effectiveness.

Despite the benefits of EPR, the policy landscape remains inconsistent. Waste policy experts highlight the need for clearer goals and design incentives across states. Some advocate for EPR to fund recycling system improvements, while others emphasize the importance of reducing producers' environmental impacts. Design changes also vary, with some policies focusing on litter reduction, such as using nondetachable bottle caps, while others push for reusable or bio-based packaging.

As states experiment with divergent policies, the lack of consistency creates a challenging environment for companies striving to redesign their packaging while meeting varying regulatory requirements.