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

FastCompany: Standing in your local retail store, it can be mind-boggling to try to weigh the pros and cons of all the packaging options. Take shampoo, for example. Shampoo can come in a rigid plastic bottle, a flexible squeeze tube, a refillable metal canister, or a solid bar in a paperboard box. A viral video of the “packaging guy” from comedian Jimmy Rees highlights just how arbitrary packaging design decisions seem. Trying to make environmentally friendly or socially conscious purchasing decisions can be a challenge, as product packaging can feature various sustainability claims.

You might see a product listed as any of the following: recyclable, compostable, refillable, made with recycled content or bio-based materials, carbon- or plastic-neutral, cruelty-free, fair trade, promoting responsible forest management, or a myriad of other labels. Disposing of the empty packaging poses a similar challenge. Which materials are recyclable, compostable, or trash is generally determined at the local municipal level, based on what packaging items regional recycling and compost markets will accept.

As an environmental policy researcher , however, I’ve seen the potential in a policy approach gaining traction for packaging in the United States: extended producer responsibility , or EPR. This approach could radically change what packaging companies choose to use and what happens to that packaging after you throw it out. What is extended producer responsibility? Extended producer responsibility policies are based on the “polluter pays” principle , which holds that the parties responsible for generating pollution should bear the cost of managing it. As the name implies, EPR extends responsibility to producers.

Determining exactly who counts as the producer and what type of responsibility is extended, however, depends on the particular law. Generally speaking, these policies aim to hold big companies such as General Mills or PepsiCo liable for what happens to the cereal boxes, chip bags, and soda cans their products are packaged in. By requiring these brand owners to fund—and in some cases operate—recycling systems, EPR shifts the burden of waste management off local taxpayers. As producers incorporate these costs, the assumption is that they will redesign their packaging in ways that reduce their overall environmental impact .

First implemented in Europe in the early 1990s, this policy approach has gained considerable global traction. Over 400 mandatory EPR laws covering various products—including packaging, cars, electronics, batteries, textiles, and more—have been adopted in various countries. Producers generally pay fees to a producer responsibility organization, based on the amount and type of packaging material they sell. This organization then uses the money to pay for the collection and processing of packaging materials for recycling. These programs have improved recycling rates .

But they have been less successful at encouraging packaging design improvements . As EPR policies evolve, policymakers are experimenting with new approaches that encourage producers to make sustainable packaging design changes. For example, one new policy mechanism—eco-modulation—adjusts producers’ fees up and down based on certain design considerations. With eco-modulation, producers that incorporate recycled material into their packaging may pay less in fees. On the other hand, producers that use difficult-to-remove labels that make their packaging hard to recycle may face higher fees. Packaging policies gaining ground in the U.S.

Article truncated for readability. Read the full piece →

The article addresses a significant shift in packaging policies that could affect major brands, making it impactful and relevant, while the concept of EPR is becoming more common, slightly lowering its novelty score.