How the EPR Policy Could Impact Manufacturers and Consumers

The UK's Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme will reshape how businesses fund packaging waste from its first charging year in October 2025.

The policy moves the full cost of managing household packaging waste from local authorities to producers, introducing considerable financial and administrative pressures for manufacturers.

However, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) has voiced concerns that these costs could be passed on to consumers.

EPR introduces recurring fees based on the type and volume of packaging a business handles, with detailed annual reporting required.

Businesses are categorised as small or large producers based on turnover and the amount of packaging they handle, with larger producers facing more obligations.

EPR's financial impact

The EPR cost structure has prompted concerns that it may affect sectors unevenly, with glass packaging facing high per-tonne charges.

Industry estimates suggest total EPR charges could reach £1.38bn annually.

Glass packaging could account for up to £625m of that figure despite being less than 5% of packaging by volume.

This presents a challenge for industries like the beverage sector that rely on glass. For example, one 750ml glass bottle could have fees of around £0.11 to £0.14.

The approach has led to arguments that it penalises materials like glass, which are already widely recyclable.

These new expenses come as businesses face around £8.75bn in additional costs for 2025, according to BRC modelling.

Navigating data compliance

Under EPR, affected companies must collect and report detailed data on all packaging, including weight, recyclability and material composition.

This administrative workload is already increasing, with 85% of retailers noting a rise in resources needed for compliance.

The Environment Agency has provided a temporary enforcement easement for recyclability reporting for the first half of 2025, though other duties remain.

This reporting burden is particularly heavy for smaller manufacturers who may lack automated systems, creating operational bottlenecks. The OECD notes that well-executed EPR schemes can increase transparency and material recovery rates.

Designing for circularity

Many manufacturers accept the principle behind EPR and are already reducing packaging and using more recyclable materials.

The BRC has called for the government to ring-fence EPR revenue to ensure it is invested directly into local recycling infrastructure.

Andrew Opie, Director for Food and Sustainability at the BRC, says: “Retailers accept the ‘polluter pays’ principle, but the timing of the levy during a cost-of-living crisis means consumers will rightly ask what they are getting for higher prices.”

In the drinks sector, leaders highlight how EPR encourages designing for circularity.

Craig Woodburn of Molson Coors notes the change incentivises sustainable packaging choices. He asserts that EPR supports closed-loop recycling where packaging is reused rather than discarded.

Craig believes the long-term benefits of an effective system will outweigh the initial burdens, but an industry-government partnership is needed for success.

EPR represents a fundamental change in accountability for packaging waste.

However, key questions remain over how much cost consumers will bear, how recycling investment will be managed and if smaller firms can handle the reporting demands.

Fee modulation offering discounts for greener materials is anticipated from 2026, but producers need faster clarity on its implementation. Until then, pressure continues to mount across the supply chain.