Making EPR work

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy that makes producers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, including their end-of-life stage. It is a strategy to pass on the estimated environmental costs associated with a product throughout its life cycle to the manufacturers, importers, and brand owners involved in bringing it to market.

A brief history of EPR

The first country to formally adopt an EPR policy was Sweden in 1991. The Nordic country introduced a national EPR programme requiring producers to take responsibility for the collection, recycling, and disposal of packaging materials. This was directly influenced by the work of Thomas Lindhqvist, a Swedish academic who coined the term ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ in a 1990 report to the Swedish Ministry of the Environment.

After Sweden pioneered EPR in 1991, the concept quickly gained traction, particularly in Europe, and then gradually spread globally.

Germany introduced its now-famous EPR programme for packaging in 1991, the Green Dot system (Duales System Deutschland). France followed in 1992, with the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, and Japan introducing packaging EPR schemes in 1995. By the turn of the millennium, British Columbia in Canada and South Korea had also introduced schemes for packaging.

In the 2000s, Norway, Taiwan, Spain, Portugal, and South Africa all introduced packaging EPR laws. The 2010s saw rapid adoption in emerging markets. Brazil in 2012, Chile in 2016, and Vietnam in 2018. India introduced a mandatory EPR for plastics in 2018, while Indonesia published a roadmap for plastic packaging EPR in 2019.

More recently, the Philippines passed its EPR act for plastic packaging in 2022; Jordan introduced mandatory packaging EPR in 2023; and Vietnam in 2024.

Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore are all planning to launch EPR schemes for packaging in 2025. The United Arab Emirates plan to schedule a framework in 2026.

The United States has historically lagged behind in adopting national-level EPR policies, especially for packaging waste. However, at state-level, Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, and Minnesota have all passed EPR legislation for packaging, with implementation expected within the next years.

Types of EPR

EPR schemes come in many shapes and forms. They are mainly applied to the waste management sector, in areas such as packaging, electronics, batteries, tyres, and textiles. Their implementation varies widely, but the main types of EPR system may be categorised into fee-based; operation-based; compliance-based; and voluntary. Deposit Return Schemes (DRS) are also a popular type of EPR policy, where customers pay a deposit when purchasing a product that is refunded when the empty product is returned to a collection point.

In fee-based EPR systems, producers pay fees into a collective fund to finance the collection, sorting, and recycling of their products. The scheme is often run by Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) or government agencies. Germany’s Green Dot is an example. Fees are typically calculated based on weight or volume of packaging, material type, or environmental performance. The latter is a type of fee-modulation system, where the fees that producers pay vary according to the recyclability and environmental impact of their packaging materials. The United Kingdom is currently working on such a system for packaging, set to be implemented in October 2025.

In operation-based systems, producers are directly responsible for collecting and managing waste. They may, individually or collectively, set up their own take-back systems, logistics, and recycling facilities.

In compliance-based systems, producers are legally required to meet collection, recycling, or recovery targets, but have flexibility in how they achieve them. Producers may meet their obligations by setting up individual or collective schemes, rely on PROs, or finance collection and recycling through third-party service providers. The Philippines’ EPR scheme is an example.

In voluntary schemes, producers or industry associations voluntarily commit to take responsibility for their products. Some EPR schemes, like Indonesia’s, are often considered voluntary in practice, if not in theory, due to lack of mechanisms enforcing waste management or fines for non-compliance.

Case study: EPR in the Philippines

The Philippines has a compliance-based EPR system since 2022. The Extended Producer Responsibility Act of 2022 for plastic packaging was introduced in record time. In two and a half years, the legislation went from Senator Cynthia Villar submitting the first version to the Senate on Feb. 11, 2020, to being passed into law by Congress on July 26, 2022. In comparison, the UK’s EPR scheme has been in the works since 2018.

The Philippine’s EPR system requires companies to take responsibility for their plastic footprint, measured by weight. The law mandates companies with more than PHP 100 million (€1.6 million) in assets to develop a scheme to recover a certain percentage of their plastic packaging footprint, by weight equivalent, or face a fine of at least PHP 5 million.

Stefanie Beitien, managing director at PCX Solutions, a PRO in the Philippine’s EPR system, told Sustainable Plastics how the system works.

“In the Philippines, companies must first measure their plastic footprint, which is a useful exercise to help them understand their impact. Based on their footprint, they must take increasing responsibility, starting at 20% in 2023, growing to 40% in 2024, 50% in 2025, 80% by 2028, and beyond. Companies are required to recover an equivalent weight of plastic to their footprint,” Beitien explained.

“The law includes six upstream measures to reduce the footprint, such as using recycled content or refilling stations, and six downstream measures, such as plastic credits or take-back systems. Plastic credits allow companies to comply while working on reduction and recycling programmes, which is especially helpful in the early stages when companies can't reduce their footprint significantly within one year. The funds from plastic credits go directly into projects benefiting waste management efforts.”

PCX Solutions is one of eight PROs in the Philippines’ EPR scheme. The Philippines-based non-profit was one of the first to create a standard for plastic credits in 2020.

A plastic credit is an environmental commodity that represents the collection or recycling of one tonne of plastic waste, which can be transferred between organisations. Credits are created when one entity, often referred to as the project partner, implements practices that collect or recycle plastic waste. The recoveries generated can then be claimed by another entity. 

PCX’s Plastic Pollution Reduction Standard (PPRS) for plastic credits provides an audited, transparent, verifiable system of physically collecting, transporting, and processing plastic waste to prevent leakage into the environment. All projects that issue credits under PPRS are audited twice - first, they undergo a conformity assessment by an independent third-party validation and verification body to ensure the project meets the environmental and social impact standards laid out in PPRS. They also undergo another third-party audit for impact verification when the credit is issued.

When used as a compliance mechanism in the Philippines’ EPR, producers can only offset their footprint using plastic credits if these were issued to projects that manage plastic waste within the Philippines. PROs like PCX Solutions act as an intermediary between producers and the Filipino government.

“We help over 100 companies comply by supporting them to calculate their plastic footprint and connecting them with third-party auditors,” Beitien explained. “We consolidate the footprint data and report it to the government. Additionally, we conduct webinars and workshops to educate companies, help improve legislation and provide feedback to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to refine the laws. The government is receptive to suggestions and aims to continuously improve the EPR system.”

Penalties for non-compliance are substantial. Fines start from PHP 5 to 10 million, with escalating penalties for repeated offenses, including the potential loss of a business permit. No penalties have been imposed so far. Compliance has been required since 2023 and a lot of companies are still registering for the scheme, Beitien said.

“As of now, no fines have been imposed in the Philippines. This year, penalties are expected to be enforced more rigorously as it marks the third year of compliance. The government is still finalizing the list of companies that need to comply and working through the registration process, which takes time. A lot of knowledge-building, workshops, and awareness programs are in progress to encourage companies to comply.”

While compliance-based EPR systems have the disadvantage of needing strong monitoring and enforcement, the flexibility it allows producers is a good fit for the conditions on the ground in the Philippines, Beitien argued.

Fee-based EPR schemes may be a good fit for countries in the Global North which already have robust waste management infrastructure in place. In the Global South, however, many countries lack the required infrastructure. It would take years to accumulate enough EPR-fees to meet the investment necessary to set up collection and recycling infrastructure, Beitien said. In the meantime, plastic waste would go unmanaged.  

In this sense, the plasticity of EPR schemes is a welcome attribute. Different types of EPR fit countries with different requirements and different capabilities. The needs of small island countries or archipelago nations, like the Philippines and Indonesia, whose territory is spread across thousands of islands of various sizes with sometimes poor interconnection are a world apart from those of, say, Sweden. Part of making EPR work is devising the type of strategy that best fits the reality of one’s country.

Nonetheless, it is also important that compliance-based EPR schemes like the Philippines’ do more than serve as a ‘patchwork’-solution for the plastic waste crisis. While the scheme requires producers to take responsibility for their plastic packaging footprint, at present it allocates no funds whatsoever to developing the infrastructure needed to make local waste management sustainable in the long-term.

“The long-term goal of EPR should be to create systematic change by building waste infrastructure, including collection, sorting, and recycling. While plastic credits for collection of existing pollution can be a transitional solution, there is a need for substantial investment in long-term infrastructure. Discussions are ongoing in the Philippines about creating infrastructure credits, where part of compliance funds could be allocated to building waste management infrastructure. This would be a more sustainable solution in the long run, ensuring systematic change,” Beitien commented.

Global Plastics Treaty
Making EPR work has also been a key point in negotiations at the Global Plastics Treaty. Indeed, it is one of the few points of comparative consensus.

The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which includes some of the world's largest corporate buyers of plastics like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, has lobbied for the treaty to include an obligation at the national level to advance targets and systems for collection, reuse, and recycling based on common definitions and key principles for EPR.

As the purportedly last round of negotiations failed to reach an agreement in Busan, South Korea, at the end of 2024, the European Union has expressed its ‘deep disappointment’ and reiterated it would rather walk away from a bad deal than agree to a treaty it sees as too weak. The block defends that, at a minimum, any treaty should include measures for EPR, as well as product design and address microplastics.

Discussions at the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) in Busan considered regional EPR schemes, especially for small island developing states or countries with limited capacity. In these cases, countries like Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia could collaborate on a regional EPR scheme, allowing them to share waste management infrastructure and ensure responsible treatment of plastic waste across borders.

As the world readies for INC 5.2 in Geneva, Switzerland, on August 5 to 14, 2025, hope remains that countries will at least come together to make EPR work.