The loop is beginning to close. Waste professionals who prepare now, by cleaning up data, understanding baseline costs, and engaging early in program design, will be positioned to shape outcomes rather than simply react to them.
By Morgan McCarthy, JD
For decades, U.S. municipalities shouldered the financial burden of managing mountains of packaging and electronics at end-of-life. Cities funded recycling through property taxes while manufacturers profited from cheap, disposable packaging with no downstream accountability. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) flips this equation by making producers, brand owners, importers, and manufacturers, responsible for financing and often organizing the recycling and disposal of their products.
The principle is straightforward: those who design and profit from products should plan for their afterlife. In my work with municipalities preparing for EPR transitions, I have seen both the promise and the pitfalls. Done well, EPR can stabilize recycling budgets, upgrade infrastructure, and create genuine design incentives. Done poorly, it adds administrative burdens with limited environmental gains. This article explores where U.S. EPR stands today, what international experience teaches us, and what waste professionals should do now to prepare.
EPR Takes Root in the U.S.
The U.S. arrived late to EPR for packaging. While Canada and Europe shifted recycling costs to producers decades ago, American cities struggled with underfunded programs, especially after China鈥檚 2018 National Sword policy collapsed markets for contaminated recyclables.
Maine broke ground in 2021 with the nation鈥檚 first packaging EPR law, requiring producers to join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), a nonprofit entity that collects fees and manages compliance, and pay fees covering municipal recycling costs. Oregon followed quickly, then California raised the stakes with SB 54, mandating that by 2032, all packaging sold in-state must be recyclable or compostable, with 65 percent of plastic packaging actually recycled. Producers will contribute $5 billion to a statewide plastic pollution mitigation fund.
Electronics have operated under EPR much longer. Since Maine鈥檚 2004 e-waste law, 25 states now require manufacturers to finance collection and recycling of televisions, computers, and printers. Similar models exist for paint, mattresses, and batteries鈥� more than 135 EPR laws across 18 product categories already exist nationwide.
The challenge is fragmentation. Each state defines producers, covered materials, exemptions, and targets differently. A national brand may face seven packaging laws and 25 electronics laws, each with unique reporting and fee structures. Industry warns compliance costs will escalate without harmonization, while municipalities worry about juggling multiple PROs in overlapping territories.
Lessons From Abroad
Before U.S. programs scale up, it is worth examining regions that have lived with EPR for decades. Europe embedded EPR into circular economy policy in the 1990s. Germany鈥檚 鈥淕reen Dot鈥� system helped achieve a 67 percent packaging recycling rate. France operates more than 20 EPR programs covering packaging, furniture, textiles, and toys. The EU has halved packaging waste to landfill in two decades, but success required strong enforcement, harmonized standards, and continuous refinement of fee structures. Early programs suffered from weak oversight and free-riding, problems that took years to correct.
British Columbia offers perhaps the most relevant model for the U.S. Since 2014, producers have funded 100 percent of residential recycling costs for packaging and paper, saving municipalities hundreds of millions while achieving nearly 80 percent recovery rates for plastic packaging. The key insight: clear rules, full producer responsibility, and competitive PRO systems that drive efficiency.
South Korea鈥檚 program achieves an 87 percent average recycling rate across 24 product categories through rigorous government oversight, substantial penalties for noncompliance, and fee structures that genuinely incentivize design changes.
The pattern is consistent: strong oversight and harmonized rules drive results. Weak enforcement and fragmented approaches dilute them.
The Benefits and the Complications
EPR鈥檚 core appeal lies in realigning incentives. When only municipalities pay for recycling, producers are not motivated to change packaging. When producers must finance collection and processing, waste becomes a cost of doing business and reducing that cost becomes a design imperative.
For cities, this means immediate financial relief. British Columbia municipalities saved hundreds of millions when recycling costs shifted to industry. EPR creates dedicated revenue streams that make infrastructure upgrades feasible. South Korea, for example, increased packaging recycling 70 percent within 15 years largely through steady EPR funding. Fee structures that penalize hard-to-recycle packaging and reward recyclable alternatives encourage producers to rethink design. France pioneered 鈥渞epair bonuses鈥� for electronics, funded by EPR fees, which subsidize consumer repair costs and extend product lifespans.
However, EPR is no silver bullet. Producer fees rarely disappear; instead, they flow downstream through product prices. Consumers may see higher grocery bills, and small businesses face compliance costs that accumulate significantly. Producers must track materials by weight, register with PROs in multiple states, and file detailed reports. States must enforce compliance and arbitrate disputes. Weak oversight allows 鈥渇ree riders鈥� who avoid fees to undermine funding. In my consulting work, I have seen municipalities spend months just determining which PRO to contract with and how to structure data reporting.
Fees alone do not build recycling plants or create buyers for recovered material. If end markets are weak, as they remain for many plastics, collected material may sit in warehouses or get exported. Without complementary policies like recycled content mandates, EPR risks becoming a funding transfer without systemic change. And if fee differences between recyclable and non-recyclable packaging are too small, producers simply pay rather than redesign.
The U.S. patchwork creates genuine operational headaches. A hauler operating in three states may contract with municipal governments in one state, a PRO in another, and a hybrid model in the third. MRF operators face varying contamination standards, reporting requirements, and payment structures depending on material origin.
What Waste Professionals Should Do Now
If you are a waste professional in the U.S., EPR will reshape your work over the next three to five years. Municipal managers should start by auditing data systems, PROs will require detailed reporting on tons collected, contamination rates, and processing costs. Document exactly what you spend on collection, processing, marketing, and administration before negotiating with PROs. Without accurate baseline data, you cannot evaluate whether EPR funding is adequate. Review existing hauling contracts鈥攎any were not written with EPR in mind and may need amendments addressing who contracts with the PRO and how revenue flows.
Haulers and MRF operators may soon contract directly with PROs rather than municipalities, fundamentally changing customer relationships. PROs may impose stricter contamination limits, collection frequency requirements, or reporting standards than you currently face. Payment structures may shift from municipal contracts to per-ton processing fees or performance-based incentives tied to recovery rates. Multi-state operators should prepare for different PRO relationships, reporting systems, and performance metrics in each jurisdiction.
Regardless of whether your state has passed EPR legislation, here is what to do now:
1. Get your data house in order. Start tracking collection costs, processing costs, contamination rates, and material flows by weight and category.
2. Attend PRO stakeholder meetings as they form in states with new EPR laws. Participate early; it is much easier to influence program structure during design than after implementation.
3. Review and stress-test contracts through an EPR lens.
4. Build relationships with neighboring jurisdictions for regional coordination that can reduce costs and increase leverage in PRO negotiations.
5. Educate your elected officials and finance staff. EPR sounds simple but gets complicated fast. Make sure decision-makers understand that EPR does not necessarily eliminate municipal costs; rather, it transforms them.
6. Monitor legislation in your state and neighboring states to anticipate trends and plan proactively
The Road Ahead
Extended Producer Responsibility is reshaping U.S. waste management from theory to reality. It offers genuine opportunities to stabilize recycling economics, upgrade infrastructure, and align corporate accountability with environmental outcomes. However, it also introduces new complexities in contracting, reporting, and interstate coordination that will challenge even experienced waste professionals.
The U.S. is entering a critical experimentation phase, adapting lessons from Europe, Canada, and Asia while developing state-specific models. The next five years will determine whether EPR becomes a cornerstone of the circular economy or another fragmented layer of regulation that drives up costs without delivering proportional benefits.
What is certain is that the loop is beginning to close. Waste professionals who prepare now, by cleaning up data, understanding baseline costs, and engaging early in program design, will be positioned to shape outcomes rather than simply react to them. The municipalities and haulers who move proactively will find opportunities in this transition. Those who wait will find themselves scrambling to comply with systems designed without their input. | WA
Morgan McCarthy, JD is a Project Manager with more than 18 years of experience in solid waste, recycling, yard waste, and food waste management across both public and private sectors. She has led more than 56 high-impact projects, specializing in franchise agreement negotiation, RFP development, municipal code drafting, financial analysis, and regulatory compliance. Her ability to navigate complex procurement and policy environments makes her a trusted advisor in developing and implementing sustainable waste management solutions. She is a SWANA/CRRA Certified Practitioner in Zero Waste Principles and Practices and SWANA-certified in Integrated Solid Waste Management. Morgan can be reached at (502) 292-4648 or e-mail [email protected].