The state of EPR in the U.S. is uncertain. We’re seeing foundational uncertainties, like legal challenges to Oregon’s EPR that could — if the current ruling is appealed — affect EPR’s future in Oregon, California, and Washington state. Then, we have more granular uncertainties around deadlines, recycling rate targets, and packaging design mandates.
Amid these swirling uncertainties, we have some good news: To see what paper and packaging EPR might look like in the future, we don’t have to wish for a crystal ball. We can look to our neighbors up north.
A Decade Head Start
On September 14 – 16, 500 attendees gathered in Quebec City for the Canadian EPR Forum, formerly the Canadian Stewardship Conference.
Canadian provinces have been implementing full paper and packaging EPR programs since 2014, meaning they have a roughly 11-year head start on U.S. EPR programs. Today, nine Canadian jurisdictions (eight provinces and one territory) have established EPR programs. In the U.S., we have seven states with passed EPR laws, but only two operational programs (Oregon and Colorado).
During the conference, attendees saw what U.S. paper and packaging EPR could look like a decade from now.
The Challenges with Provincial EPR Programs
1. Policy patchwork
Across America’s state packaging EPR laws, no two programs — targets or timelines — are alike. Canadian packaging and sustainability professionals know this problem all too well.
With EPR programs in nine Canadian jurisdictions and different PROs managing different programs, producers are navigating nine individual fee, audit, and requirement schedules across jurisdictions.
Of course, the need for harmonization was a central theme — how can we harmonize producer and covered material definitions, fee schemes, and duplicative reporting schedules. But harmonization isn’t what lawmakers want. As the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ (APR) Kate Bailey pointed out, “harmonization” is a bad word for lawmakers. They don’t want to harmonize; they want to meet their constituents’ unique needs.
2. Reporting on reporting
Canadian producers already report into nine different EPR systems, and on top of these, Canadians are submitting data to the country’s Federal Plastics Registry, a reporting system designed to support Canada’s broader goal of zero plastic waste by 2030.
“Producers have nine individual fee schedules across the country. In one quarter, I could have several different reporting deadlines, scheduled audits, or even surprise audits on our data,” General Motors of Canada’s Tammy Giroux said. “How can companies keep doing this if reporting and auditing get more complex?”
3. The complexity-impact paradox
The layers of paper and packaging reporting leads to a bigger question: Is all of this complexity improving recycling outcomes?
At the conference, several speakers questioned whether increasingly complex requirements are translating into better recovery outcomes. “We’ve layered in complexity, but we don’t know how much it’s actually improved capture,” one panelist said.
Now, as Canadian packaging sustainability regulations move upstream — expanding into areas like packaging design and recycled content — speakers emphasized the need to keep complexity from compounding with it.
The Solutions Canadians Are Championing
For U.S. packaging sustainability professionals, Canada offers a useful look at solutions that could help us leapfrog some of EPR’s most persistent growing pains.
1. Create a lane for harmonization
As APR’s Kate Bailey emphasized, policymakers need room to serve their constituents’ unique needs, while producers need a lane for harmonization across jurisdictions.
As we implement EPR in U.S. states, this means producers could advocate for greater consistency around producer and covered-material definitions, reporting deadlines, audits, and other requirements that become especially burdensome when companies operate nationally.
2. Align on design guidance
During the conference, Canada’s PROs and producers shared an update on the soon-to-be-published Ecodesign Guidelines, a nationally harmonized framework to help producers make design decisions that improve recyclability across Canadian markets. The guidelines focus on three strategies: reduction, responsible procurement, and recyclability.
Because producers can’t realistically tailor packaging to every province, this kind of harmonized guidance will be especially valuable for decisions like material selection, right-sizing, and designing for recyclability.
3. Plan — and hire — for the next frontiers
After 12 years of full EPR in Canada, stewardship is moving further upstream. Canadian stakeholders are already looking toward recycled content mandates, harmonized labeling, reuse, and broader packaging design requirements as the next frontiers for packaging circularity.
And EPR is no longer just the sustainability team’s job. Compliance, finance, governance, marketing, and other functions were all represented at the Forum, reflecting how deeply these programs now reach across organizations.
For U.S. packaging professionals, we can consider how today’s hiring and portfolio decisions will perform under the kinds of requirements that may become standard over the next decade.
What the crystal ball shows
Canada may not have figured out EPR perfectly yet, but looking into the crystal ball that is their implementation can give U.S. packaging professionals a head start on building future-proofed packaging portfolios.
Want to strengthen your packaging EPR strategy? Get involved with GreenBlue projects today.