The Evolution of Extended Producer Responsibility

Maryland became the sixth U.S. state with a packaging EPR law after Gov. Wes Moore signed SB 901 on May 13.

The law covers certain packaging and paper products, including beverage containers. Program fees will help local governments cover costs associated with recycling collection, transportation and processing in Maryland. Producers found to be in violation of the law may eventually face civil penalties ranging between $5,000 and $20,000.

Maryland’s law also includes ecomodulation provisions meant to incentivize packaging that can be recycled, reused or composted. Maryland’s packaging EPR bill differs from other state programs in that it allows multiple producer responsibility organizations to operate at the program’s launch.

Moore applauded the bill as a way to reduce unnecessary packaging and “ensure we have the right systems and the right structures in place for recycled materials and make sure [packaging materials] actually get recycled,” he said during the bill signing. He also thanked citizen recycling advocates and noted support from McCormick & Co., a seasoning company that has been involved in the state’s EPR process, and the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Beverage Association, the region’s beverage bottler and distributer trade association.

Moore also thanked lead bill sponsor state Sen. Malcolm Augustine, calling him “a true leader on this issue for a long time.” Augustine led with bill along with state Sen. Sara Love and others.

In a separate statement, Augustine said the law “will create a more efficient, circular system for managing packaging and paper—resulting in cleaner communities, less waste, and more sustainable products.”

Maryland’s road to packaging EPR was more gradual than in some states. The law comes in the wake of a 2023 study bill that called for an EPR advisory group, recycling needs assessment and subsequent recommendations report. That report was released earlier in 2025. SB 901 was introduced before those findings were shared, but bill sponsors said subsequent bill amendments reflected some of those recommendations. 

Circular Action Alliance, the industry-founded PRO active in multiple other U.S. states with packaging EPR laws, participated in Maryland’s EPR advisory board.

Multiple packaging groups were pleased with Maryland’s outcome. “Ameripen is proud to have supported Maryland’s data-driven EPR legislation and hopes that other states will follow suit as they consider similar legislation in the future,” the policy organization said after the bill passed.

Key recycling groups supported the bill. The Product Stewardship Institute said it has been working with Maryland lawmakers and Trash Free Maryland since 2021 to develop the law, based on PSI’s national packaging EPR model. It also provided technical assistance and helped with stakeholder engagement, PSI noted in an email.

The Maryland Recycling Network also supported the bill, including language to preserve local control over recycling programs as well as public and private MRF owner control over facilities and operations. The Association of Plastic Recyclers and other organizations offered additional written testimony in support of the bill in March, as well as suggested various amendments. 

The World Wildlife Fund applauded the bill signing. “This important measure to reduce discarded plastic will help protect Maryland’s natural wonders like the Chesapeake Bay while also delivering tangible benefits for businesses and consumers around the state,” said Alejandro Pérez, senior vice president, policy and government affairs, in a statement.

Yet the American Forest & Paper Association called for Gov. Moore to veto the law, saying in April in an op-ed in The Daily Record that the law would negatively impact complex paper recycling systems in the state. The group historically opposes EPR that includes paper products, but noted that it supported Maryland’s needs assessment process.

The Massachusetts Extended Producer Responsibility Commission has until Jan. 15, 2026, to make initial recommendations to the state legislature, but members decided at their inaugural meeting in Boston on April 14 to advance certain categories sooner.

The commission, chaired by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, agreed to focus on policy discussions about paint, mattresses and lithium-ion batteries at its May, June and July meetings. This could lead to legislative recommendations over the summer.

Packaging and electronics were deemed more complicated categories to address and are scheduled for meetings in September and October. The group intends to form subcommittees on both topics to start discussions beforehand.

Massachusetts is viewed as a relative outlier among its Northeast neighbors and other Democrat-led states for not making progress on any EPR bills in recent years. This commission, established as part of a 2024 climate law, is designed to advance the conversation.

MassDEP staff reminded commission participants about the need for solutions, as total 2023 waste volumes increased to nearly 6.2 million tons, putting the state off track for its 2030 waste reduction goals. Meanwhile, disposal capacity is limited and costs are rising. The agency estimated solid waste disposal and recycling costs increased 18% between 2021 and 2024. 

The state currently has three EPR laws — focused on pharmaceuticals and certain mercury-containing products — some of which are scheduled to sunset in the coming years. 

Scott Cassel, CEO of the Product Stewardship Institute, noted there are now 141 EPR laws covering 20 different product categories across the United States. This includes every category that Massachusetts’ commission is exploring. During a presentation, he described EPR as “the centerpiece of the circular economy” and a way to help advance municipal recycling rates that have “stagnated.”

The 20-member commission is tasked with exploring how such laws could affect costs, waste systems and other factors. Members include representatives from the National Waste & Recycling Association, Casella Waste Systems, MassRecycle, MassPIRG, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, state legislators, various state agencies and other trade groups. As of the first meeting, two slots intended for environmental justice groups were unfilled and MassDEP said outreach efforts to find these members were ongoing.

MassDEP Commissioner Bonnie Heiple said she’d heard a critique that forming the commission was a delay tactic. She noted this wasn’t the agency’s intention and it was following direction from the legislature.

“It is true that sometimes when people want to make something go away they study it. That's not what we're going to do here,” said John Beling, deputy commissioner for policy and planning at MassDEP, who chairs the commission. Beling said the commission could endorse certain bills or propose language as needed.

Massachusetts legislators have introduced seven EPR bills this year, covering every category under the commission’s purview. Many were reintroduced from prior sessions, where they languished for various reasons.

Waneta Trabert, vice president of MassRecycle and director of sustainable materials management for the city of Newton, recommended the group start with categories such as paint and mattresses that have been discussed for many years and were considered less controversial in the last session. Both have industry support and successful models to follow from other states, though Massachusetts’ mattress disposal ban is a unique factor.

Lithium-ion and rechargeable batteries are also a priority for MassRecycle and NWRA due to the rash of facility fires they say are caused by improper disposal. Trabert said there’s been “a lot of conversation and momentum” about battery EPR this year. Lew Dubuque, vice president of chapter relations at NWRA, called that category “the low-hanging fruit.”

Packaging and electronics are considered more complex, given the wider variety of products and their attendant collection and processing infrastructures. While packaging EPR laws have now passed in five states, with Maryland expected to soon become the sixth, the concept hasn’t gained traction in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts legislators are set to approve environmental bond bill this year. Advocates hope this could be a vehicle for policies related to plastic bags, polystyrene foam and updating the bottle bill; but EPR isn’t likely to be part of it.

The state has a two-year legislative session, which began this year. Critics say this format reduces the urgency to pass bills in a timely fashion. Legislative leaders tend to prefer tackling issues in larger omnibus bills, rather than taking them up on a rolling basis as is more common in other states.

State Rep. Michael Day, who is sponsoring a packaging EPR bill, and state Sen. Michael Barrett, co-chair of the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy committee, discussed how the commission’s recommendations would align with legislative timing.

“The typical legislative model is to try to be comprehensive ... I guess I have no problem conceptually with our envisioning altogether separate bills dealing with each of these five discrete buckets. But that would be a departure from the norm,” said Barrett.

Others discussed whether different types of EPR laws could be best suited to separate bills or combined approaches, while Cassel referenced the concept of EPR framework legislation that has been used in Maine.

Beling reiterated that he wants to find ways to make progress before January 2026, most likely on paint, mattresses and batteries.

“I defer to the legislature on how they want to write any bills. To me, I think three of these would make sense to get moving on pretty soon,” he said, noting that when it comes to certain categories of EPR “we’re long overdue.”

Sponsored content

By Reworld

As environmental pressures mount and technology advances, waste management is becoming a strategic priority across industries. From manufacturing to healthcare and distribution, organizations are transforming how they manage, monitor and monetize waste. Here are seven key trends shaping waste management in 2025.

1. Regulatory Shifts Driving Compliance

Major regulatory changes are reshaping waste management practices. California’s SB 54 mandates that all packaging be recyclable or compostable by 2025, pushing companies to document recycling rates and material recovery. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) adds emissions accounting requirements, while its Corporate Sustainability and Reporting Directive (CSRD) demands ESG data transparency from over 50,000 global companies. Expanding Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws in multiple U.S. states further increase compliance obligations, requiring robust tracking systems and operational adjustments.

2. Intelligent Waste Analytics and Automation

The fusion of artificial intelligence (AI) and IoT sensors is revolutionizing waste management. Predictive analytics enable businesses to proactively reduce waste streams before they escalate. The World Economic Forum predicts digital technologies could reduce global carbon emissions by up to 20% by 2050. Food and beverage manufacturers can optimize organic waste management, while healthcare facilities leverage data-driven solutions to comply with stringent regulations and minimize waste at the source.

3. Automated Compliance Management

With regulations becoming more complex, automated compliance management systems are crucial. In 2025, automation extends beyond waste tracking to end-to-end compliance solutions, offering real-time updates and instant documentation. Healthcare facilities will use AI-driven systems for medical waste disposal and manufacturers will rely on automated hazardous waste management to enhance safety and reduce human error. These advancements simplify compliance for industries handling organic, hazardous and regulated waste.

4. Circular Economy Solutions

Forward-thinking organizations are adopting circular economy principles to turn waste into valuable resources. Metal manufacturers are recovering production scrap as raw materials, while food and beverage companies convert organic waste into energy. Distribution centers are implementing closed-loop packaging and healthcare facilities are exploring safe reprocessing options. These efforts reduce disposal costs while opening new revenue streams.

5. Smart Collection and Transportation

Traditional scheduled waste pickups are being replaced by demand-driven systems using smart compactors and fill-level sensors. These technologies optimize transportation costs, particularly for industries with strict disposal timelines, such as healthcare and food production. By reducing unnecessary pickups, companies can lower emissions, improve service reliability and maximize waste storage efficiency.

6. ESG Performance and Real-Time Reporting

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) accountability is accelerating, making waste management a key sustainability driver. In 2025, real-time waste tracking will enable businesses to generate automated ESG metrics, providing transparency for stakeholders. Products with ESG-related claims have driven 56% of all market growth in the past five years, underscoring the competitive advantage of sustainable practices.

7. On-Site Processing Innovation

Compact waste processing technologies are enabling on-site treatment solutions, reducing transportation costs and environmental impact. Food and beverage companies can manage organic waste internally, while healthcare facilities adopt safe on-site treatment for medical waste. Manufacturing facilities are using these technologies to recover materials and minimize waste at the source. AI-driven precision agriculture is also contributing to sustainability by optimizing resource use and minimizing waste.

The Future of Waste Management

The future of industrial waste management lies in integrating these trends to create efficient, value-driven solutions. Companies that embrace innovation while maintaining regulatory compliance will not only cut costs and improve sustainability but also gain a competitive edge. Strategic adoption of smart waste solutions will position organizations for long-term success in an evolving environmental landscape.

The Maine Board of Environmental Protection finalized rules for the state’s extended producer responsibility law for packaging on Dec. 5.

The law, the first of its kind in the nation when it passed in 2021, is now among five EPR for packaging laws in the U.S. It is set to take effect in 2027.

Finalizing the rules marks a key step in the process after years of deliberation, debate and soliciting comments from stakeholders. The state’s Department of Environmental Protection collected hundreds of pages of feedback to inform development of the rules. 

Members of the business community, including the Maine Chamber of Commerce, asked the state to pause the rulemaking process, citing concerns that Maine’s proposed EPR for packaging structure diverged too much from other state’s models, creating possible regulatory issues for businesses and producers. Ameripen had also previously asked for a pause, but BEP moved ahead at its Dec. 5 meeting.

Maine’s law, which covers most types of consumer packaging, is unique compared with packaging EPR laws in other states.

In Maine, producer payments will directly reimburse local governments for waste management costs. The amount each producer pays will be based on the volume it generates, as well as how recyclable or reusable its packaging is. Maine’s law is considered a full municipal reimbursement model, meaning the producers pay fees but leave collection duties to the municipalities.

California, Oregon and Minnesota have a shared responsibility model in which municipalities are reimbursed, but producers and municipalities share collection duties. In Colorado, producers will fund a statewide recycling program and take a role in managing it.

While some trade groups took issue with Maine having a different system than other states, others that testified said they didn’t view this as a legitimate concern.

“Programs like this, as you know, have been operating successfully around the entire world for decades, literally 40 to 50 years in some countries. Absolutely none of those programs are harmonized with another one,” said Sydney Harris, policy director for Upstream, who said this law was intentionally “tailor made for Maine” and the state’s unique needs.

Maine already has EPR programs for other products including batteries, paint, mercury thermostats and prescription drugs.

“Maine DEP has been overseeing eight other types of EPR programs here in Maine that date back to 1995. They know what works in Maine. We're not the same as Oregon, we're not the same as Minnesota. We're certainly not California,” Harris said during the hearing.

Concerns over costs

Commenters also raised concerns over how Maine’s EPR model will play out in the market, in terms of where the final cost burden falls.

BEP Chair Susan Lessard, who voted against adopting the final rules, said during the meeting that companies likely will pass resulting costs on to consumers. 

“We are moving this cost off the property tax to something else because it will have to go somewhere else, because producers won't add cost to their system without moving that cost along,” she said.

Other meeting attendees didn’t view this as a likely outcome and said they anticipate that customers may make different purchasing choices based on the finalized system. 

During the meeting, board member Robert Duchesne pointed out that state lawmakers could introduce legislation meant to refine the EPR law and address concerns raised by some stakeholders. The state’s EPR law also includes an annual report mechanism that could provide an opportunity for the legislature to weigh in periodically.

In a written statement after the final vote, the Natural Resources Council of Maine said the finalized rules were a “practical solution” that will help raise recycling rates. NRCM was a key backer of the initial law.

The EPR program will “shift costs away from taxpayers onto the corporations that produce and profit from the huge volume of cardboard and plastic packaging that’s driving up waste management costs for Maine municipalities,” said Vanessa Berry, NRCM’s Sustainable Maine program manager. 

Maine’s rules also include numerous implementation details and metrics. Producers must make a certain percentage of packaging “readily recyclable, reusable or compostable,” starting at 50% by 2030 and increasing to 75% by 2040 and 100% by 2050. Producers will need to reduce packaging in the program, by weight, by 40% by 2040 and 60% by 2050.

Other provisions call for producers to meet post-consumer recycled material thresholds to avoid higher fees and increase use of reusable packaging over time, among numerous other details.

Disposal reimbursement rates debate

Another key point the waste industry raised during the public comment period was a provision in the rules about reimbursement rates for disposing of packaging that’s not readily recyclable. 

Casella Waste Systems — a landfill operator in the state — took issue with provisions that would reimburse communities that use incinerators at a higher rate than landfills, as well as not reimbursing communities that are near an incinerator but choose to use a landfill. One reason it cited was that communities may send their waste to different facilities throughout the year, especially when incinerators are down for maintenance.

“We strongly oppose this language on the ground that it obscures the current realities of waste disposal in the State of Maine, results in unfair outcomes for Maine municipalities, reduces market competition, incentivizes CO2 emissions from the combustion of plastic, adds unnecessary complexity, and distracts from the stated goals of EPR for Packaging,” wrote Bob Cappadona, vice president of resource solutions, in a comment.

Aroostook Waste Solutions, a nonprofit landfill operator and recycler, raised similar concerns.

Nonprofit incinerator and MRF operator ecomaine said it fully supported the proposed final rule and appreciated the recognition of landfill emissions. The city of South Portland, which sends its material to ecomaine, questioned the incinerator language.

Meanwhile, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce expressed concern about disposal costs being included in the reimbursement rate at all. The chamber also questioned the incinerator advantage. The Natural Resources Council of Maine, a key backer of the initial law, also questioned the incinerator language but said it supported the inclusion of disposal costs.

Oregon officials are set for a busy implementation schedule in 2025 now that the Environmental Quality Commission has adopted the final set of rules for the Recycling Modernization Act, the state’s multifaceted extended producer responsibility law for packaging.

Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission passed the second and final set of EPR for packaging rules in late November. The sweeping EPR law calls for numerous statewide recycling improvements. The rules finalized in November include new operating and performance requirements for MRFs, which include new permitting and fee details, as well as details on providing a “living wage” for recycling facility workers. 

The latest round of rules also covered numerous other details such as adding exemptions for some types of products and calculating costs the PRO will need to pay recyclers or municipalities.

Oregon DEQ has been hashing out details of how to implement the EPR law since it first passed in 2021. The first set of rules, approved in November 2023, sorted out what would be included in statewide recycling acceptance lists and hammered out details for how recycled commodities would be sold into “responsible” end markets. It also set forth responsibilities for the state’s producer responsibility organization, Circular Action Alliance. 

Under the law, most packaging producers must become members of the PRO. Local governments will be able to use producer funding for improvements such as collection services and facility upgrades. The new program will begin rolling out on July 1, 2025, and DEQ expects most of the planned improvements to be complete by the end of 2027.

“Preparations are beginning in earnest now,” said Katie Romano, a materials management outreach specialist for the agency, in an email.

New MRF rules and responsibilities

One DEQ priority in 2025 is to develop the forms and procedures for the new MRF permit and registration program outlined in the final rules. Romano said this new system is a part of the state’s overall work to minimize contamination in material streams and make recycling operations more transparent, “ensuring that materials are actually recycled at end markets and in an environmentally beneficial way,” she said. Permitted and certified MRFs will need to meet new capture rates and contamination standards, according to DEQ rules.

Under the new rules, in-state MRFs — known as “commingled recycling processing facilities” — will pay a registration and application fee of between $100 and $500 depending on how many tons the MRF receives each year. An annual compliance fee will be between $50 and $1,000.

Recycling facilities will also need to pay workers a “living wage” based on a rate set by the county where it operates. Workers will also be entitled to “supportive benefits” including health insurance and paid sick leave and vacation time, as well as disability and life insurance.

DEQ says it does not anticipate these permitting, wage and benefit requirements will negatively affect MRF budgets and operations because such costs can be covered through a new Processor Commodity Risk Fee that the PRO must pay to MRFs.

That fee, which is designed to ensure producers “are sharing in the costs of fully processing commingled recyclable material,” is a per-ton rate based on calculating “eligible tons” of recyclables minus the average commodity values DEQ sets on a monthly basis. That rate will start at $200 in 2025, according to the rules. The PRO will also have to pay MRFs a contamination management fee, which starts at $341 for 2025 and 2026.

The PRO must also pay up to $15 million a year, or 10% of the three-year average of PRO expenditures, to fund projects focused on reduction and reuse efforts. DEQ is working to develop a new grant program funded by that new waste prevention and reuse fee. 

What’s next for implementation

Now that the EPR law rules are finalized, DEQ has several other Recycling Modernization Act priorities for 2025. The department is in the process of reviewing the final draft of Circular Action Alliance’s program plan, a required document that outlines how the PRO will comply with the EPR law. CAA has submitted three total drafts of the plan throughout the year, and DEQ expects to complete the latest review in February, Romano said.

DEQ is also getting ready for next summer, when local governments will begin a “rolling launch” of collecting items on the state’s new Uniform Statewide Collection List, a list meant to reduce confusion about what is and isn’t accepted for recycling in the state.

Around that same time, producer funding is expected to begin “flowing toward needed collection infrastructure at the municipal level,” she said. Local governments and the service providers they use are in the process of determining which entities will be able to use PRO funding for such projects, she said.

Other states have also met similar EPR rulemaking milestones this year. Maine recently finalized its EPR rules, which hammered out numerous metrics and fees. California, Colorado and Minnesota also have EPR for packaging laws in progress.

States implementing packaging EPR programs are figuring out how to charge producers the necessary fees. Oregon is the only one so far that is using a common but sometimes contentious tool: life cycle assessments.

According to draft implementation plans, these protocols for assessing the “cradle to grave” effects of a product might help decide how much the 25 largest producers in the state pay into the EPR program. LCAs will also serve as a way for all brands to pursue a discount on their fees through a process known as ecomodulation.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality thinks that this approach could help it go beyond just shifting recycling costs onto brands and also encourage greater usage of packaging that has a relatively lower environmental impact.

Some people think LCAs are the kind of report that companies or trade groups only release when the results align with their own interests. In Oregon, the filings will sometimes be mandatory and the agency has explicit protocols for companies to follow.

But the ultimate effectiveness of LCAs, experts say, depends on how large an influence the analyses have in decision-making and whether they include all the factors that really matter. 

When it comes to how well this method gauges packaging environmental harm, “I think it is absolutely fair game and should be thought deeply about and criticized,” said Shelie Miller, a sustainability scientist at the University of Michigan. “LCA is flawed, but it's also the best we got.”

The role of LCAs

EPR systems have been active in the U.S. for various products for decades, but are newer for packaging. As policy advisors have pointed out, governments can craft the programs to shape broader management outcomes, like a decrease in the sheer volume of materials produced.

Five states have passed legislation creating EPR programs for packaging specifically. The laws require a producer responsibility organization, or PRO, to charge manufacturers fees related to the design and type of materials produced and how they are disposed of. 

The Oregon EPR program incentivizes manufacturers to reduce the environmental harm of the packaging they provide. LCAs are a crucial part of how the program plans to reach this goal.

First developed for Coca-Cola products in the late 1960s, life cycle assessments — and their intentions — have evolved over the years. The studies aim to look at the environmental implications of a product from its raw material collection to its final destination, whether that’s a landfill, a compost pile, or the depths of the ocean. Creating an LCA requires pulling data and quantifying the water consumption, ozone depletion, pollution and other harms of a given product.

When the Oregon system starts shaping recycling in July 2025, LCAs will peek through in a few places, encouraging specific corporate decisions.

How much money a company owes into the EPR system depends on what kinds of packaging material they use and how many tons of it are used in the state. The top 25 producers are required to create LCAs for 1% of their products sold or distributed in the state every two years, while smaller companies can voluntarily submit LCAs if they want to earn a reduction on the fee they owe. Both kinds of companies could earn a discount if they opt to take their LCAs a step further and use them to prove they have reduced the environmental impact of a product. 

Offering lower fees for more environmentally friendly products is often called ecomodulation. The Oregon DEQ gave the PRO five factors it had to consider when deciding how to shift payment, including LCA consideration. While these tools are meant to inform, none are required to actually be part of how fees are ultimately set.

“We feel that among the five factors there in the statute, this is the one that most solidly correlates to actual adjustment in environmental impacts,” said Nicole Portley, a program plan lead at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 

These rules were adopted in late November. In early December, the Circular Action Alliance, the PRO for Oregon, submitted its third proposed implementation plan. The Oregon DEQ has yet to approve the plan and comments are open until Jan. 17.

No company in Oregon is required to prove through an LCA that they meet certain environmental benchmarks. Still, the Oregon DEQ thinks that completing an LCA and making it public can have environmental benefits, thanks to the result of a study the agency commissioned about a decade ago. “Just the simple act of a producer evaluating and disclosing correlates to action to reduce impacts,” said Portley.

Other researchers also see value in the exercise itself. “It’s often said in my research community that the real value of the LCA is doing it,” said Reid Lifset, a research scholar at the Yale School of the Environment. 

While definitive data isn’t available on how many LCAs are done overall, or who is funding the research, it’s common to see them conducted by trade groups and packaging companies.

Proponents say that requiring an organization to systematically gather further information about how their products are manufactured could push companies to consider the consequences of how and what they source, make and waste. If the goal of an EPR program is to reduce how much environmental harm packaging creates, then an LCA might better serve that mission than a program judging choices based on whether they lead to disposal or not. 

At the same time, Lifset said, he’s skeptical that the results of an LCA itself — a numerical score — should be the basis for any EPR program. Fitting every relevant detail into the assessment is too big an ask. Lifset said that details such as social consequences from making certain types of packaging could benefit from their own independent evaluations.

“I'm not sure that we want one monster tool to address all of our concerns,” he said.

The plastics factor

LCAs have also sparked debate for other reasons in recent years, particularly when it comes to analyzing plastics.

Anja Brandon, the director of plastics policy at the Ocean Conservancy, thinks LCAs miss crucial factors about the benefits or consequences of a given packaging type.

For plastic, LCAs often do not address health repercussions for communities near refineries and production plants or the broader implications of further justifying fossil fuel extraction. The same can be said for microplastic spread, PFAS contamination, “or any number of other kinds of things that we struggle to incorporate because we struggle to measure them to begin with,” Brandon said.

But LCA results that focus on emissions can become the deciding factor in what packaging is promoted, Brandon adds, typically in the plastic industry.

A 2024 analysis of over 130 LCAs focused on packaging options, some of which were commissioned by companies or groups, shows that the findings tended to favor plastic options. Run by Anibal Bher and Rafael Auras at Michigan State University’s School of Packaging, the analysis found that 92% of the LCAs reported emissions associated with different package options and that those greenhouse gas values were lower for plastic bottles and cartons than glass versions or cans. 

The protocols for Oregon producers earning a fee reduction by showing improved performance state that climate impacts are weighted more heavily in an LCA score than mineral and metal use, plastic harm to wildlife, or how the material impacts nutrient-dumping in water. Brands also have to report scores for toxicity to humans and the environment, but share those results independent from the LCA value. 

The Oregon DEQ knows that there are other impacts of concern — and ones with paltry data describing how they influence the environment. Part of its LCA protocol refers to modules from organizations constantly updating the best way to assess certain questions as a way to cope with the ever-changing science

MariLCA, or Marine Impacts in LCA, is one of these modules. A mix of academics, nonprofits and industry groups, funded by the Life Cycle Initiative and Plastics Europe, is building out a more robust way for LCAs to incorporate the harm plastic litter has on organisms, ecosystems and human health. When it comes to aquatic life, for example, some considerations include plastic entanglement or ingestion. 

Anne-Marie Boulay, a chemical engineer at Polytechnique Montréal who is co-chairing MariLCA, first organized a similar initiative covering water use, a now-common life cycle impact factor that used to be left out of analyses. Plastic spread through the environment is yet another missing piece that could leave people conducting LCAs with a misleading conclusion, she said. 

“If the emissions of plastic litter into the environment is not included in that methodology, then most questions regarding packaging could not be properly answered,” Boulay said. “How do we know if this is not actually worsening another problem or moving the problem somewhere else, when we don't have the full picture?”

Some MariLCA collaborators research how different plastic types, shapes and fragment sizes behave in freshwater, saltwater, or soil. Others like Boulay take the array of available studies to build characterization factors, the part of an LCA that translates scientific understanding into a measurable sense of environmental impact. 

MariLCA offers a few ways to make the conversion. One method translates the science into the percentage of species potentially affected by a given plastic per year. Right now, MariLCA only offers guidance on calculating marine system impact. As more data rolls in, MariLCA will revise its tool. Boulay and her colleagues are already drafting the second update, which she anticipates being published later in 2025. 

Even if LCAs grow more comprehensive and include concerns like harm to wildlife, Brandon would rather see states take a different approach than Oregon.

Instead of setting fees or incentives based on LCA results, Brandon would prefer EPR programs work backwards from the recycling system they desire. If the goal is to maximize reuse, have easy-to-operate recycling systems, and reduce plastic packaging — which are the kind of EPR program goals the Ocean Conservancy would like to see — then policy can be crafted to support those changes.

Other states are taking this approach. In California, for example, the law for the EPR program requires the amount of single-use plastic packaging and food service ware sold in the state to drop at least 25% come 2032. All of those goods have to be recyclable that same year — and 65% have to actually make it through the recycling system.

The draft implementation plans have the PRO determine what producers owe depending on the number and weight of plastic materials they have in the state. The PRO is also expected to give discounts to producers using plastics that are derived of “renewables,” or materials “wholly derived from natural resources that are not of mineral or fossil fuel origin, without resulting in the net depletion of any of the resources.”  

The California program doesn’t ask producers to produce life cycle assessments. Whether they do is up to them, according to CalRecycle.

“The law does incentivize producers to consider the lifecycle of a product by ensuring producers pay for the costs associated with end-of-life management. Products that are harder to reuse and recycle will bear a higher cost under the EPR program,” wrote Patrick Coyne, an information officer, over email. “Producers will need to consider the lifecycle of a product, including a product’s design for easy recycling, composting, or reuse, and the product’s recycling rate.” 

Shane Buckingham, the EPR program planning lead for Circular Action Alliance, which is the PRO for the Oregon and California programs, wrote over email that “CAA does not currently plan to introduce the use of LCAs in states where it is not part of the EPR legislation or regulations.”

Future questions

If a bunch of producers choose to — or in Oregon’s case, have to — submit LCAs due to a regulation, comparing one company’s assessment to another can get tricky. 

“The real issue comes in when we try to use LCA for legislation and lawmaking,” said University of Michigan’s Miller. “How do we actually make sure that individual LCA practitioners are doing the same thing in the same way and accounting for things on a consistent basis?”

The Oregon EPR program spells out some LCA protocols for manufacturers. The entire process is built on the guidelines published by the standards group ISO, a choice many but not all LCA practitioners make, too. The Oregon DEQ added extra specifications to keep brands operating with as many of the same inputs as possible. 

But every group of LCAs comparing similar products to one another runs up against the same conundrum, Miller said. Either everyone can use the same baseline data — an industry average or even a number pulled from a single study — and agree that none of it is the perfect fit for their own operations. Or, they can use site-specific information for a more accurate LCA but make it harder to compare results.

One example of these trade-offs has come up often in Miller’s work and conversations with other LCA practitioners. LCAs looking at U.S. manufacturing include energy use data, specifically how much carbon dioxide is emitted per kilowatt hour of power. There’s a national average everyone can use, but facilities in states with lower-than-typical values like California or Vermont might push back. 

“If my plant is located somewhere that is less than the U.S. average, that means that you're penalizing the study that comes out about my particular plant,” Miller said. There’s no one right decision to make about these trade-offs, but they are inevitable, she added.

The Oregon DEQ wants information in brand LCAs to be as specific as possible to the current manufacturing procedures the companies use for goods that will end up in Oregonians’ hands.

“The producers are compelled to represent their specific product and supply chain to the highest extent possible, and with primary data first,” said Peter Canepa, an LCA specialist at the Oregon DEQ. 

Even if the requirements make it harder to compare one company’s outcomes to another’s, the site-specific information serves another DEQ goal to make more information about manufacturing practices available. Save some proprietary details, the LCAs and what goes into them have to be made public, Canepa added. The first mandatory reports will be published in 2026. 

More information about how packaging is made and its ultimate fate could be useful to government staff, policy researchers and activist groups, Yale’s Lifset said. Over the years, all the information coming out of the Oregon LCAs could show the myriad of ways production protocols might be changed to reduce emissions, enhance recyclability, or drop the amount of material used. 

The LCAs produced for Oregon’s EPR program will add to a long list of existing assessments that Miller said is already ripe for its own type of analysis.

Enough LCAs have examined similar products and systems that it’s possible to step back and see which ones agree or disagree with each other. Though there will always be differences in pros or cons of a given package depending on where it was made and what it consists of, one reliable method for reducing any kind of environmental harm stays constant, Miller said.

“The only way to guarantee no trade-offs is to reduce the amount you consume.”

While recycling gets a lot of attention in extended producer responsibility policy development, reuse systems also stand to benefit from forthcoming investments  — especially if producer responsibility organizations adopt a long-term vision for reuse and are ambitious, supportive and transparent, according to Upstream.

The first five state packaging EPR laws in the U.S. have some reuse components. Upstream, a nonprofit focused on shifting from single-use to reuse systems, recently developed a position paper about how a PRO can support planning for a transition to reusable packaging systems within EPR programs. Policy Director Sydney Harris presented on the topic during a Feb. 12 webinar.

Outside of the EPR context, reuse is mostly seen in food service and refill contexts, Harris explained. “But when we talk about reuse in EPR programs, it's important to specify that we are talking about returnables. Returnable reusables are owned by producers or third-party reuse providers, and they get returned into the reuse system after each use,” she said.

The first key is for a PRO to adopt a long-term reuse vision and set consistent program goals, Upstream asserts. Policies in California, Maine and Minnesota already include reuse rates and market share targets, Upstream notes.

“You don't want to set this target higher than is feasible, because rolling it back may erode the public's trust, but you don't want to set it too low either, because that would signal a lack of true commitment and ambition,” Harris said. “So it is a balance – something like 15% market share for returnable reusables across all jurisdictions could do the trick as a starting point, with a longer-term goal to maybe reach 30% in another 10 years.” Those same states have source reduction language, and refill can serve as a solution, Upstream notes.

Minnesota will also require a return rate target. “Individual return rates should be tied to the specifics of each packaging format and its break-even point for environmental and economic gains,” said Harris, who was recently named to the advisory board for Minnesota’s packaging EPR program. “But an overarching target could reflect an average, like 85% within five years, increasing to 90% within 10.”

PROs ought to ensure that there are incentives and technical assistance for producers and provide direct funding for reuse systems. This would mean dedicating a portion of the overall program budget annually to developing and maintaining reuse systems, Upstream notes.

Ultimately, PROs should also ensure there’s public reporting on progress toward targets, including return and loss rates, and where reusables are ending up.

Some of these practices were reflected in Circular Action Alliance’s draft program plan in Colorado.

CAA, an industry-founded PRO operating in multiple states, proposed incentivizing producers to opt for reusables through ecomodulation, promoting reporting mechanisms and fostering public awareness of the benefits of reusable and refillable packaging. It also proposed establishing a “community of practice” of parties that want to study and implement reusable or refillable options. As far as measuring success, CAA would track how much single-use packaging was abated in the state annually.

Brands, suppliers and other packaging stakeholders in between are still hungry for insights into emerging extended producer responsibility for packaging programs. At Pack Expo International, key voices in that state-by-state scale-up sought to educate large attendee crowds about what brands need to know and how suppliers can help.

Michael Okoroafor, chief sustainability officer at seasonings and condiments company McCormick & Co., framed the significance of EPR in the context of climate science and how packaging contributes to scope 3 emissions, which affects CPGs’ 2025 and 2030 emissions reduction commitments.

“If you need to decarbonize the planet, you need to make sure that you decarbonize packaging, and that's why EPR is critical,” he said during a Nov. 5 panel discussion about how suppliers can help brands complying with new EPR programs. This effort requires brand owners, material companies and others, said Okoroafor, who also participates in Maryland’s EPR advisory council.

Neil Menezes, a CPG sustainability professional who also serves as vice chair of the producer responsibility organization Circular Action Alliance, noted there are opportunities for non-producers to get involved with the PRO, too. One way is in helping influence ecomodulation as rulemaking occurs for EPR laws that have already passed.

Suppliers will play an important role in helping brand owners source data, noted Menezes, packaging sustainability policy manager at General Mills.

For instance, he said that while companies buy certain materials like films by linear feet, EPR programs work off of weight. Menezes said General Mills has worked closely with suppliers to understand that conversion.

One lesson that Menezes took from experience in Canada, especially with flexible packaging, is that having calculations off by just 5% or 10%, when multiplied by millions of units, can result in paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra fees.

General Mills has spent the last four years cleaning up its data, Menezes said.

In a separate presentation, Clorox Packaging & Sustainability Data Steward Kristin Speck detailed the company’s five-year journey to better track and understand its sustainability data amid the passage of state EPR laws. That period has also seen new PCR laws and Clorox joining the voluntary commitment group the U.S. Plastics Pact and being a signatory of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

“We are definitely still in the middle of the journey. There's still a lot of work to be done to make sure that we're fully ready for these EPR laws and many more EPR laws that are likely to be passed,” said Speck.

Speck encouraged companies to invest in data professionals and platforms, and embed data into overall processes for packaging development.

“My advice for you, wherever your company might be on your own journey, is to hire data people. You need to invest in people who really understand data,” she said.

Companies must also invest in a data system, she said. “We are far beyond the days of just Excel and putting a whole bunch of people in a room and waiting to get those final numbers. Clorox chose to develop the system internally, but there’s a lot of systems you can purchase that can layer on top and do the same sort of work.”

Suppliers may also be able to help customers navigate EPR based on their experience with such policies in other jurisdictions.

Jason Pelz, vice president of sustainability for Tetra Pak in the U.S. and Canada, shared in a separate interview that, for now, EPR-related conversations with customers center on explaining fundamentals as well as the company’s work to improve the recycling value chain. As a Europe-based company, Tetra Pak is “ahead of the curve” and in a position to provide guidance because it already has experience with EPR, Pelz noted.

EPR isn’t the only important category of legislation that’s on the rise. Ameripen hosted a separate session about packaging policy’s expansion in the United States. While EPR is Ameripen’s top issue, it also engages on state recycled content mandates, recycling and compostability claims and labeling restriction policy, among other areas, explained Membership and Policy Director Rob Keith.

Keith previewed a federal solution Ameripen has been working on, known internally as the Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act. The aim is to draft federal language for compostable, recyclable and reusable claims and labeling, and add a new subtitle to the Solid Waste Disposal Act to establish a federal legal framework and standards for such claims in conjunction with consumer product packaging, among other aspects. It would empower the U.S. EPA to administer that framework, Keith said.

“It’s something that we’re going to be pushing pretty actively in 2025,” said Keith.

Recycling and waste groups in California expect to see fewer textiles enter their facilities in the coming years now that the state has passed a first-in-the-nation extended producer responsibility program for the material.

CalRecycle is expected to begin the regulatory process, including hosting stakeholder meetings, as early as the first quarter of next year, said Joanne Brasch, director of advocacy and outreach at the California Product Stewardship Council, a main bill sponsor. That will keep the state on track to offer more options for recycling, repairing and reusing old clothing and textiles by 2030, she said.

SB 707, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, is also meant to take aim at the environmental impacts of fast fashion and “throwaway culture,” said bill sponsor state Sen. Josh Newman in a statement. Newman said the law “isn’t just about recycling; it’s about transforming the way we think about textile waste.”

Textiles are the fastest-growing category of residential and commercial waste in the state, according to the CPSC. Textile waste can also create specific issues at waste and recycling facilities.

“Textile and clothing producers over-produce hard-to-manage materials that can absorb, tangle, and combust if mixed into plastic recycling system[s],” said a coalition of waste groups, local governments and brands in an August 2025 letter. They also hope success in California could mean similar EPR programs elsewhere in the country.

Currently, most of the labor and cost of managing textile waste falls on thrift stores and secondhand markets, along with local governments, CPSC said. 

The new law will hold textile producers, including major brands, financially responsible for managing such material at end of life. That could include funding convenient drop-off locations around the state, said Brasch.

The law will require producers of certain apparel and other textile products to establish a producer responsibility organization, which will fund statewide programs for reuse, repair and recycling. 

CalRecycle will need to approve a producer responsibility organization by March 1, 2026, then adopt regulations to implement the program no earlier than July 1, 2028. The PRO will need to submit a plan for collection, repair and recycling of such textiles by July 1, 2030. 

The law also calls for brands to emphasize repair and reuse programs, such as by partnering with an organization that repairs branded clothing for resale, Brasch said. Producers who prioritize repair aspects may also pay lower fees into the EPR program since the law sees repair programs as part of the ecomodulation process. “Repair is source reduction,” she said.

Numerous waste and recycling groups supported the bill, including Republic Services, Recology, GreenWaste, local chapters of the Solid Waste Association of North America, National Stewardship Action Council, Californians Against Waste, Resource Recovery Coalition of California and a coalition of brands and environmental groups.

Robert Reed, public relations manager at Recology, said in an email that textiles are “a growing waste issue” led by the rise of fast fashion. “More of these materials are ending up in our landfills and environment than ever before,” he said.

The new EPR model “brings clothing producers on board to improve collection and diversion, displace raw material needed to create new fabric, and reduce the environmental impact of the textile and fabric industry,” he said.

Bill supporters expect the textile EPR success in California to spark other state legislatures to consider their own versions of the bill — possibly in New York, where a similar bill did not move forward last year. Lawmakers at the federal level have also called for more in-depth solutions for textile waste across the country.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts has a disposal ban on textiles, which is different than a full EPR program but signals policy movement in that state.

Brasch said CPSC has already been talking with lawmakers and advocates in other states about their process. Doug Kobold, CPSC executive director, said the topic of textile EPR came up numerous times at a recent EPR event he attended in Canada. 

Coalition building was an important aspect that allowed the bill to pass in California, Kobold said, and he hopes other states considering their own EPR for textiles bill can follow California’s example. 

The bill was first introduced during California’s 2023 legislative session and passed the Senate. However, it was converted into a two-year bill to update language and accommodate more stakeholder input, including from retailers and the apparel industry that had originally opposed elements of the bill. Over the summer, the American Apparel & Footwear Association, which had previously opposed the bill, offered a more neutral stance, citing improved stakeholder engagement from bill sponsors. 

“The advocates that have been working on this issue for years deserve a lot of credit for building a consensus around tackling textile waste,” said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy at Californians Against Waste, which supported the bill.

Long-term, Lapis said he hopes the law will help prompt producers to invest in “more sustainable design decisions from the outset. I, for one, am ready for more slow fashion.”

The Solid Waste Association of North America developed a technical policy on extended producer responsibility for a range of products and packaging, as well as document offering “guiding principles” for such policies.

SWANA advocates for EPR systems that help support recycling and reuse, enhance recycling infrastructure and education efforts, and make recycling safer. The documents are meant to guide stakeholders but are not meant to serve as model legislative language, SWANA says. The association focuses its advocacy on education and policy positions versus lobbying.

Stakeholder engagement is a critical aspect of EPR policy development. SWANA’s new EPR policy documents aim to cement the association's position in the conversation, especially as more EPR policies are adopted in the United States and throughout North America. 

“We envision SWANA taking a lead as a convener and curator of stakeholder conversations around EPR, especially in terms of how the programs affect and improve safety and the necessity of using and improving the current collection and processing systems,” said Amy Lestition Burke, SWANA’s CEO, in a statement.

SWANA defines EPR as a policy “that holds that producers are responsible and accountable for the lifecycle of their product.” The scope of the EPR policy guidance applies to packaging as well as materials like household hazardous waste, lithium-ion batteries, carpets, mattresses, tires, paint, and sharps.

SWANA says it supports EPR policies that protect and integrate current waste collection and processing systems while also ensuring responsible end markets. It also calls for representatives from waste collection and processing businesses to have “a ‘seat at the table’ to provide transparency and oversight” in some sort of advisory council role.

The policy document also advocates for needs assessments, consistent data collection and other clear metrics to keep all participants in the value chain on the same page.

During a panel discussion on EPR at SWANA’s WASTECON on Oct. 23 in Grapevine, Texas, panelists referenced SWANA’s new policy document while discussing how needs assessments and other data points can help build strong programs. Yet gathering good data can be a challenge, they said.

“Data is going to be critical” to EPR programs, said Kevin Roche, CEO of ecomaine and secretary of SWANA’s board of directors. ecomaine is a nonprofit recycler in a state that’s in the process of implementing an EPR for packaging law.

SWANA also says it’s important for any EPR program to “focus on safety throughout the lifecycle of the product,” particularly for those who work in solid waste and resource management roles. SWANA calls for potentially using some of an EPR program’s funds to address materials it considers particularly harmful or dangerous to workers, including batteries and compressed gas canisters. SWANA also calls for programs to consider management techniques for other elements such as PFAS and household hazardous waste.

“People really don't realize that EPR goes hand in hand with safety,” Roche added during the panel discussion.

SWANA is among the major waste and recycling groups that have released detailed EPR positions and policies in recent years. 

The National Waste & Recycling Association updated its EPR position several years ago. It does not specifically advocate for EPR programs but instead for laws that “support and invigorate existing recycling systems by strengthening them rather than upending them with duplicative and unnecessary programs.” The association also advocates for legislation that focuses on investing in infrastructure and on building markets for recycled materials. NWRA says product manufacturers and brands should bear the cost of EPR programs, among other positions. 

In 2023, the Recycled Materials Association issued guidance on packaging EPR policies, which listed elements the association prioritizes when assessing a particular EPR bill or policy. That list includes elements such as providing “off ramps” that allow for certain commodities to be exempted from an EPR program and hiring an independent third party to conduct a needs assessment for a given program, among other priorities. 

ReMA also looks for programs that encourage “convenient access to recycling,” and prioritize existing recycling and hauling infrastructure. It also recommends systems for hard-to-recycle materials, such as retail takeback and drop-off programs.

SWANA periodically updates its technical policies on relevant waste-related issues. It also recently updated its position on bottle bills, coming out in support of container deposit systems that allow recyclers to participate, set higher deposit values and allow for curbside materials.

Development of the EPR policy documents came with “a great deal of discussion and respectful debate on the various factors of EPR to make sure a range of perspectives were represented,” said Tammy Hayes, SWANA’s board president, in a statement. 

Jacob Wallace contributed reporting to this story.