Extended Producer Responsibility
A circular solution to plastic waste
© Milos Bicanski / WWF-UK
Plastic waste is polluting our air, our water, and our soil around the globe. But waste management and recycling systems are not currently equipped to handle the large amounts of waste we create today.
A solution is emerging to help ensure that the plastic products we all rely on every day are more widely re-used and recycled: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
With Extended Producer Responsibility, producers of plastic packaging are financially responsible for the entire life cycle of their materials. It can ensure that all sectors – public, private, and civil society—come together to solve this collective problem.
As more states and the federal government consider enacting EPR and other related recycling and circular economy policies, it will be imperative to have harmonized definitions for specific key terms to ensure consistency across all jurisdictions.
What is Extended Producer Responsibility?
EPR is a simple concept: Companies that make and sell packaging pay for managing it after it is used.
- Companies pay fees into the system based on the type and amount of packaging they sell.
- Fees are invested into recycling and reuse systems, supporting collection, sorting, and processing infrastructure, as well as public education and program expansion.
- Expanded reuse and recycling access makes it easier for people to recycle and reduce waste going to landfills or ending up in nature.
- Because companies are financially responsible for the system, they are incentivized over time to reduce packaging, create reuse systems, and make products more recyclable.
Why do we need Extended Producer Responsibility?
EPR helps improve recycling rates and packaging design by creating incentives and shared responsibility across the packaging system—especially plastic waste, just 5% of which is recycled in the US. At its core, EPR shifts the financial responsibility for plastic waste to the companies that produce it. Rather than placing the burden primarily on taxpayers and local governments, EPR requires producers to help fund the systems needed to collect, sort, recycle, and manage packaging materials after they are used.
Seven states have already adopted EPR for packaging laws: California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. Several more state legislatures are also considering legislation to create EPR systems. But a patchwork state-by-state approach still creates inconsistent rules and unnecessary inefficiencies. A well-designed federal framework would create greater consistency nationwide by establishing common expectations around who is responsible for packaging, what materials are covered, and how incentives reward better design. At the same time, states and regions should retain flexibility in how those goals are met, recognizing that a coastal tourism hub may face very different challenges than a rural farming community. Clear national rules would also make it easier for companies to invest in better packaging, recycling infrastructure, and reuse systems over the long term.
What's next?
Done right, EPR can help expand access to recycling and reuse systems, reduce landfill waste and associated emissions, eliminate problematic plastics through better design, and create new economic opportunities across supply chains and local communities.
The window for moving from patchwork progress to systemic change is narrowing. If we get EPR right at the federal level, we can move beyond simply managing waste—and begin reducing it at the source.
How WWF is taking action
WWF has advocated for a federal EPR framework through congressional briefings and testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, helping elevate the conversation around what an effective national framework could look like. WWF has also advocated for EPR policy at the state level to inform a national framework.