World Wildlife Fund and SC Johnson are again pushing conversations about a federal EPR for packaging framework, backed by new economic and consumer sentiment research.
An economic analysis published this month, commissioned by the partners and conducted by RTI, looked into the costs of implementing a federal solution versus maintaining the current state-by-state policy model for extended producer responsibility for packaging.
WWF’s Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business, said the scale-up pace for the seven state EPR laws in the U.S. begged the question, “what is the tipping point for when we need to create a more coordinated approach?”
“I think you needed to have that political lab that we see happening in state-level policy first, but it's moving quite quickly. And we're quite quickly realizing that the inefficiencies are turning out to have a pretty significant dollar amount,” she said. Those funds are coming out of what companies “would be investing into better products, more innovation and more infrastructure.”
The report authors believe expanding EPR into a national framework could cut annual waste management costs for local governments by 49% to 53% and generate $9.5 billion in state and local tax revenue over 10 years. Producer compliance costs also could be roughly halved by following one framework versus a hypothetical 50 frameworks.
Additionally, the authors argue that expanding EPR would boost labor demand across collection, processing and implementation functions to support more than 36,000 direct jobs to operate and implement policies, not including construction.
Stakeholders across the board have clamored for more harmonization across EPR laws. And a bill to have a federal framework for labeling has gained some traction this year. Yet there hasn’t been notable federal action on nationwide EPR.
Simon believes part of that is because states are coming from such different baselines. That means they have varying starting points as well as the time and money needed to reach certain targets. Simon gave the example of California, which has more political will and existing policy, versus West Virginia, which has more limited infrastructure.
“What is important, however, is that the products that are going to West Virginia and to California are the same, right?” Simon said.
Simon believes a federal-level campaign could create consistency and economies of scale.
“That way, the PRO or that state doesn’t individually have to put the capacity and the dollars towards that,” she said. It could also reduce burden on state and municipal governments.
WWF and SC Johnson have previously advocated to members of Congress for packaging EPR. WWF says Capitol Hill outreach will continue, as will engagement of the general public. Next steps also depend on what the government looks like following the November elections.
“We are already in discussions around what could be included in a federal framework and how to think about that,” Simon said, but the group so far has “nothing that is ready to be put out there.”
WWF also argues that recent consumer research shows the public supports a harmonized EPR system.
In a May 2026 online survey of more than 4,200 adult U.S. residents, conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of SC Johnson, 90% of respondents agreed that consumers, companies and government all share responsibility for reducing packaging waste. And 91% agreed that companies will be more likely to invest in improvements when regulations are consistent.
While only 11% of respondents had heard of EPR for packaging, 87% supported the concept of a federal EPR policy after reading a description. Support reportedly transcends political party: Belief in EPR and its potential to create jobs was close to equal among Democrats, Republicans and those who identified as Independents or other.
