PDA logoPDA
Back to Sustainability & Circularity
300Module 3 of 7

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

UK, EU, and US state EPR schemes—how fees, recyclability, and weight influence design.

8 minutes
policy
Next: Life Cycle Assessment for Packaging
Lesson Video
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
Module Content

1. Executive Summary

The 7 most important insights
  1. You pay by weight and by recyclability. All regions link producer costs to tonnage and apply eco‑modulation so less‑recyclable formats pay more. UK pEPR publishes per‑tonne base fees and will apply RAM‑based multipliers from 2026. [1]
  2. UK fees are now concrete. 2025–26 base fees (£/t): Aluminium £266; Fibre‑based composite £461; Glass £192; Paper & card £196; Plastic £423; Steel £259; Wood £280; Other £259. Modulation by recyclability starts 2026. [1]
  3. EU PPWR hard‑wires recyclability grades into EPR. PPWR requires DfR and Recyclability‑at‑Scale methodologies with grades (A–E). Producer EPR contributions must be modulated by grades once acts land; lower grades face progressive restrictions. [2]
  4. U.S. state programs converge on PRO‑run, modulated fees. CA, OR, CO, ME, MN require producers to fund end‑of‑life via PROs and pay material‑ and design‑dependent fees set in PRO plans/rules. [3, 4, 5]
  5. California adds big non‑fee obligations. Plastic packaging must be 100% recyclable/compostable by 2032, achieve 25% source reduction, and hit rising recycling rates; plus $500M/yr mitigation payment. Weight cuts and recyclability lifts directly reduce exposure. [6, 7]
  6. “Problematic” features are explicitly penalized. UK RAM auto‑reds (e.g., intentionally added PFAS; non‑EuPIA inks; SVHCs) trigger higher fees. Expect similar signals in EU acts and U.S. PRO tables. [8]
  7. Data quality is design leverage. EPR invoices flow from your reported component weights, format (household vs non‑household), and recyclability grade. Misclassification can cost more than a material swap. [1]
5 recommended actions
  • Specify to a recyclability guide (APR/CEFLEX/OPRL/WRAP) and capture RAM/grade assumptions in the spec. [9, 10, 11]
  • Eliminate automatic‑red features early (carbon‑black on small formats, metallization where sorting fails, non‑compliant inks/adhesives, intentionally added PFAS). [8]
  • Design to mono‑material where possible and document separability of components. [10, 9]
  • Model fee exposure in concepting: mass × region base fee × modulation factor × household share; use UK 2025 rates as benchmark. [1]
  • Close the loop with PRO guidance in key markets (CalRecycle; OR DEQ; ME DEP; CO CDPHE; MN MPCA). [6, 12, 5]
Key risks (12–24 months)
  • EU acts defining grades and thresholds; tie to fee modulation and restrictions. [2]
  • UK RAM revisions and modulators ramping 2026–2029. [8]
  • State PRO plans publishing eco‑mod tables; interactions with recycled‑content and labeling laws. Evidence gap: finalized per‑tonne fee tables. [4, 5]

2. Definitions & Concepts

  • Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) — Producers finance post‑consumer management of packaging, typically via a PRO, paying per‑tonne fees modulated by design/recyclability. [2, 1]
  • Eco‑modulation — Fee adjustments up/down based on design attributes (recyclability grades or RAM category). [2]
  • Design for Recycling (DfR) — Technical criteria (materials, attachments, colors, inks, barriers, separability) determining if a pack can be recycled. [9, 10, 11]
  • Recyclability at Scale (RAS) — EU concept: sorted and reprocessed at industrial scale with demand; codified into grades affecting fees and market access. [2]
  • RAM (UK) — Recyclability Assessment Methodology assigning Red/Amber/Green with automatic reds; drives fee modulation from 2026. [8]
  • PRO — Producer Responsibility Organization that registers producers, sets/collects fees, funds system upgrades, and reports performance (e.g., Circular Action Alliance). [13]
Concept map (bullets)
  • EPR fee = tonnes × base rate × modulation factor → budget & design KPI.
  • Modulation factor from UK RAM (R/A/G) multipliers; EU PPWR grades A–E; U.S. PRO fee tables. [8, 2]
  • Design levers: mono‑material, colorant, labels/adhesives/inks, barrier layers, closures, size/sortability. [9, 10]

3. Standards, Regulations, and Governance

UK (pEPR)
  • Legal basis: 2024 SI and data regs. PackUK invoices; 2025–26 base fees published; RAM‑modulated fees start 2026. [1, 15]
  • RAM v1.1 (Apr 2025) includes automatic reds (PFAS, SVHCs, non‑EuPIA inks). [8]
  • DRS interface: PET/Al/Steel drinks 150 ml–3 L move to DRS from Oct 2027, altering EPR base. [1]
EU (PPWR)
  • Regulation (EU) 2025/40, in force; repeals 94/62/EC. [16]
  • DfR & RAS grades via acts; EPR must be modulated by grades; lower grades face progressive restrictions. [2]
  • Member States may add criteria (recycled content, reusability, hazardous substances) when modulating. [2]
U.S. state EPR
  • California (SB 54): 100% recyclable/compostable by 2032, 25% source reduction, rising recycling rates; $500M/yr mitigation; PRO plan via CalRecycle. [6, 7]
  • Oregon (SB 582): PRO‑run; DEQ guidance on eco‑modulated fees. [4]
  • Colorado (HB22‑1355): statewide PRO; ecomodulation anticipated. [9b]
  • Maine (LD 1541): weight & recyclability‑based payments; low‑volume flat‑fee option; municipal reimbursement model. [17]
  • Minnesota (2024): CAA PRO; by 2032 all covered items refillable/reusable/recyclable/compostable; ≥90% cost reimbursement. [5, 13]
TopicUK pEPREU PPWRU.S. EPR states
Legal formUK SI 2024/1332 + guidanceEU Regulation (directly applicable)State statutes + PRO plans
Fee basisPackUK base fees; RAM modulation from 2026EPR fees modulated by grades A–E via actsPRO eco‑modulated fees (material + design)
Recyclability methodRAM v1.1 (R/A/G; auto reds)DfR & RAS grades via EU actsEmerging (state/PRO guidance)
Market restrictionsFees modulate costProgressive restrictions on low gradesNot typical; performance targets vary
Known upcoming changes
  • EU: Delegated/implementing acts for DfR/RAS grades and modulation timing. [2]
  • UK: Annual RAM updates; 2026–2029 modulation policy. [8]
  • U.S.: PRO plans publish fee curves 2025–2028; evidence gap on finalized tables. [4, 5]

4. Evidence Base & Benchmarks

  • UK PackUK base fees (2025–26, £/t): Al £266; Fibre‑composite £461; Glass £192; Paper & card £196; Plastic £423; Steel £259; Wood £280; Other £259. [1]
  • Design guidance: APR Design® Guide; CEFLEX D4ACE; OPRL/WRAP. [9, 10, 11, 14]
Evidence gaps
  • U.S. state fee modulation tables still in development in PRO plans.
  • EU A–E grade thresholds and fee curves await acts; avoid hard‑coding cut‑offs.

5. Design & Production Implications

Rules of thumb
  • Mono‑material wins: mono‑PE/PP flexibles; avoid PET/PA laminates unless separable. [10]
  • Avoid automatic reds (UK RAM): no intentionally added PFAS, SVHCs above thresholds, or non‑EuPIA inks. [8]
  • Bottle + label system: APR‑compatible labels/inks/adhesives; apply float/sink density rules for PET. [9]
  • Size & form factor: avoid small/flat/dark items that mis‑sort. [11]
Material/format trade‑offs
  • Rigid PET vs multilayer PET/EVOH/PA — multilayers may lower grade and increase fees vs mono‑PET with barrier coating. [9, 2]
  • Paper cups with PE lining vs fibre‑only — composites can face higher UK fees and RAM risk unless proven recyclable. [1]
  • Flexible films — metallization/mixed polymers reduce grade; move to mono‑polyolefin where feasible. [10]
Manufacturing notes
  • Ink/adhesive systems must be specified (brand‑generic properties OK); unknowns default to red in UK RAM. [8]
  • Track component masses (caps, labels, liners) separately; missing grams distort invoices. [1]
Designer tip: If a barrier or sleeve is unavoidable, document its separability (APR Critical Guidance where available) and link evidence to recyclability claims.

6. Sustainability & Compliance Considerations

  • Align design choices (RAM/grades) with labeling schemes (OPRL/How2Recycle). [14, 18]
  • CA SB 54 obligations sit alongside recycled‑content and labeling rules; design for both fee reduction and eligibility. [6]
  • Maintain RAM worksheets, DfR evidence (APR/CEFLEX), and BoM weights for audits/fee challenges. [8, 1]
  • Avoid unqualified “recyclable” claims where infrastructure isn’t at scale (EU RAS principle). [2]

7. Workflow & Tooling (ready for PDA tools)

Checklists
  • Ink system complies with EuPIA Exclusion Policy (UK RAM). [8]
  • Label/adhesive/substrate combo meets APR/CEFLEX for target stream. [9, 10]
  • Record per‑component mass (g) and material code in artwork BoM (feeds fee calc and RAM). [1]
  • Region compliance: UK RAM category; EU intended DfR/RAS grade; U.S. PRO/state status. [2, 4, 5]
Decision trees
  • Rigid PET labels: density < 1? Adhesive wash‑off APR‑compatible? If yes → proceed; else switch to floatable label/perforated sleeve; re‑run APR checklist. [9]
  • Flexibles: mono‑family feasible? If yes → check inks/adhesives/barriers within D4ACE tolerances; gather evidence. [10]
Calculator blueprint (EPR fee per pack)
Inputs: Region (UK/EU/State), material, unit weight (g), annual volume, household share (%), recyclability class (RAM R/A/G; PPWR A–E; state flag), year.
Formula (UK example 2026): Annual fee = (tonnes × base fee) × modulation factor × household share. Use PackUK base fees and yearly RAM multipliers as published. [1]
Outputs: total annual fee; fee per pack; sensitivity to grade uplift and 10% weight reduction.
Template RFQ fields

Component mass by material; assumed RAM/PPWR grade; ink/adhesive system & EuPIA compliance; APR/CEFLEX notes; DRS applicability; state PRO(s) coverage.

8. Category‑Specific Guidance

  • Beauty: Prefer mono‑PP systems or easy disassembly; avoid carbon‑black where sortation is limited; verify inks per EuPIA. [8]
  • Food: Replace PET/PA laminates with mono‑PE/PP where barrier allows; watch tie layers and inks; composite fibre formats may face higher fees unless proven recyclable. [10, 1]
  • Beverage: PET with floatable labels and APR‑compatible adhesives; closures compatible with stream; note UK DRS carve‑outs shifting EPR exposure. [9, 1]

9. Case Studies (Problem → Approach → Result)

1) UK beauty jar (plastic)
Problem: 20 t/yr PP jar + carbon‑black cap + PS liner scored RAM red; 2026 fees projected with red multiplier.
Approach: Switch cap masterbatch; specify APR‑compatible label/adhesive; replace PS liner with PP.
Result: RAM amber/green expected; fee exposure falls from (~20 × £423 × red) to (~20 × £423 × base/reduced). Evidence gap: final green factor per material. [1]
2) EU snack film
Problem: PET/Alu/PE laminate risks low recyclability grade under PPWR DfR/RAS.
Approach: Move to mono‑PP with barrier coating; document DfR compliance; monitor EU acts.
Result: Improved grade → lower EPR contributions; mitigates later grade‑based restrictions risk. [2]
3) U.S. beverage multipack
Problem: Shrink film failing APR guidance; fees unknown pending PRO tables.
Approach: Redesign to APR‑compatible film/inks; test via APR Critical Guidance; pre‑brief PRO.
Result: Positions for lower eco‑mod fees and labeling eligibility once tables finalize. Evidence gap: state‑specific reductions not yet published. [9]

10. Common Pitfalls & Red Flags

  1. Weight‑only optimization leading to unrecyclable laminates → higher long‑run fees. [1, 2]
  2. Missing component masses → wrong fee invoices. [1]
  3. Inks/adhesives without documented compliance → RAM “not assessed” defaults to red. [8]
  4. Ignoring DRS/EPR interface in UK. [1]
  5. Unqualified “recyclable” claims without RAS evidence (EU). [2]

References

  1. GOV.UK — EPR 2025 base fees (PackUK)
  2. EUR‑Lex — PPWR (Regulation (EU) 2025/40)
  3. CalRecycle — SB54 Packaging EPR
  4. Oregon DEQ — Recycling Modernization Act
  5. Minnesota MPCA — Packaging EPR
  6. CalRecycle — SB54 Implementation Report
  7. CalRecycle — SB54 Regulations
  8. GOV.UK — RAM v1.1 guidance
  9. APR Design® Guide
  10. Colorado CDPHE — EPR program
  11. CEFLEX — D4ACE (Dec 2023)
  12. WRAP — Rigid plastics design guidance
  13. PackagingLaw — Maine program update
  14. MPCA — CAA registered as PRO
  15. OPRL — How the scheme works
  16. UK SI 2024/1332 — Packaging regulations
  17. EUR‑Lex — PPWR OJ entry
  18. Maine LD 1541 — Law text (PDF)
  19. How2Recycle — Abbreviated Guidelines (Feb 2024)
Previous: On-Pack Recycling LabelsNext: Life Cycle Assessment for Packaging