The incoming packaging extended producer responsibility scheme has been the subject of much discussion in recent weeks – particularly by those who would like to see it delayed, reduced or removed altogether.
While it may be tactically convenient to call EPR an additional tax on business, it really isn’t. Based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, it is an increasingly popular policy tool used to tackle many sectors where end-of-life disposal places an outsized burden on public finances.
The food and drink industry’s inconvenient truth is that, for decades, not only has it avoided reporting on the volume and type of packaging it uses (which should be a minimum requirement), but it has also avoided paying for the disposal of that packaging. Instead, it has been passing on most of those costs to the same working people that the ‘EPR is a tax’ lobby claim to worry about increasing costs for.
Reducing the EPR burden
There are many contributing inflationary pressures beyond EPR, not least the fact that climate change “makes food price shocks more frequent and severe”. Of course we must focus on mitigating rising food prices that disproportionately affect the lowest income households. Additionally, there is a broad consensus that EPR monies should be ringfenced to improve all (not just recycling) waste management services.
This is why we must look to solutions that reduce the EPR burden to avoid price rises for consumers.
EPR is having exactly the effect it should – by adding the full cost of managing packaging waste to producers’ balance sheets, it forces businesses to either remove unnecessary packaging, or find more sustainable packaging options, as well as pay for the disposal of packaging that can’t be removed.
The recent FDF UK Food & Drink Inflation 2025-26 Forecast states “Further gains from supply chain restructuring… could moderate inflation, though most of those efficiencies have already been realised”. At the same time, the BRC’s recent member survey shows that their members intend to pass 80% of the costs of EPR fees to consumers. All of this shows the industry’s current limited thinking.
The reuse solution
Reuse enables producers to maintain affordability and choice for consumers, drives growth and investment in new UK-based services, all while reducing packaging-related environmental impacts.
Research from GoUnpackaged shows an average 94% reduction in EPR fees per item switched to reuse. Collecting reusables from consumers’ homes either through existing online delivery services, weekly local authority collections or a new private sector-led collection service would see a reduction of between 12% and 22% in end-to-end supply chain costs per year, at a value of between £314m-£577m.
A focus on just 18 priority categories, covering most of the key grocery products (tea and coffee, beverages, dairy, snacking, oils, personal care, ready meals, household cleaning etc) would deliver cost-effective reuse at scale in the UK, with an associated 95% reduction in associated emissions and waste generation.
Not only is the switch to reuse commercially beneficial for producers, reuse is welcomed by consumers. More than four out of five consumers (82%) think brands should do more to offer reusable packaging with a further 68% saying that they would make reuse part of their weekly shop if retailers or brands made it easy for them to do so.
But very few brands, and only some retailers, are actively pushing the reuse future that consumers clearly want. In dragging their heels, they are missing the opportunity EPR provides to drive a more profitable and sustainable future.
Staying in the current single-use paradigm would be a disaster for both the natural world and consumers’ wallets. It’s time for industry to grab the solution that lies easily in its hands.
Catherine Conway, director & policy lead, GoUnpackaged
No comments yet