Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is moving from legislative theory to operational reality for U.S. brands, with at least seven states now implementing packaging EPR laws that shift the responsibility for managing packaging waste from municipalities to product producers. This marks a pivotal regulatory shift that’s forcing retailers, CPG companies, and manufacturers to reimagine their packaging compliance infrastructure.
Under EPR, companies that introduce packaging into a state—whether through direct sales or supply chain networks—must now manage the full lifecycle of those materials, including collection, recycling, and reporting. Unlike voluntary sustainability initiatives, these programs are mandatory and enforceable, with real financial consequences for noncompliance.
From Policy to Practice: Complexity in Implementation
States including California, Oregon, Colorado, Maine, and New Jersey are at various stages of implementing their EPR programs, each with unique reporting timelines, fee structures, and definitions of “covered materials” and “producers.” This patchwork approach is proving challenging for national and global brands.
Industry leaders say the most urgent need is to move beyond spreadsheets and siloed systems to integrated data solutions capable of handling granular, state-specific requirements.
Compliance Is Now a Supply Chain Issue
EPR compliance is no longer just a sustainability concern—it is now a core supply chain and operational issue. Companies need visibility into packaging specifications, material weights, and recyclability data at the SKU level across diverse product lines and jurisdictions.
This reality demands tight coordination across packaging, legal, finance, and supply chain teams. Many companies are turning to digital specification management platforms to standardize and streamline EPR reporting, including integrations with ERP and PLM systems.
Additionally, states are moving toward enforcement phases, and early penalties for non-reporting have already been issued in jurisdictions like Maine and California, according to Packaging Dive’s reporting.
The Call for Harmonization
While there are efforts underway to align core definitions and streamline producer obligations across states, much variation remains. Industry groups have called for greater harmonization in definitions of materials, reporting formats, and enforcement mechanisms to reduce compliance friction.
Still, experts caution that full national alignment is unlikely in the near term, so brands must build adaptive systems that can scale and evolve alongside each state’s legislation.
Strategic Implications: From Risk to Competitive Advantage
Looking ahead, brands that treat EPR purely as a compliance burden may miss a broader strategic opportunity. Companies that invest in scalable packaging data systems and agile governance now can unlock cost-saving packaging optimizations, improved sustainability metrics, and enhanced consumer trust.
With sustainability under growing scrutiny from regulators and shoppers alike, EPR-ready packaging operations may prove to be a competitive differentiator, not just a defensive posture.
As EPR expands across the U.S., brands that lead in compliance readiness will be better positioned to adapt, report, and innovate—turning regulatory pressure into long-term advantage.
For a detailed look at how packaging teams are navigating the EPR transition, visit Packaging Dive’s full trendline.
More about packaging:
Staff Report
Dan Craft
Staff Report
