Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach that intends to hold brand owners, licensees, importers, and distributors accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, especially the take-back, recycling, and final disposal. This strategy aims to incentivize producers to design environmentally friendly products by making them responsible for the costs associated with the end-of-life management of their products.

EPR in the United States: Current Landscape

Several U.S. states have enacted EPR laws targeting packaging or packaging and printed paper materials. As of April 2025, states including Washington, Maine, Oregon, California, Colorado, and Minnesota have passed such legislation, with a Maryland bill the latest to be signed into law, and two bills under consideration in New York. These laws vary in scope and implementation timelines, but they collectively signify a shift towards producer accountability in waste management.

Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act: A Closer Look

Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act (SB 582B), enacted in 2022, is a pioneering Extended Producer Responsibility law that mandates producers of “covered products” – including packaging, food serviceware, printing and writing paper, newspapers, magazines, catalogs, telephone directories and similar publications – to participate in a producer responsibility program. By July 1, companies that are considered producers must

• Register with and be a member of a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) that administers a state-approved producer responsibility program.
• Pay an annual membership fee to its PRO. The PRO will set fee schedules each year. Fees will be based on the quantity and type of each covered product, environmental considerations, and the impacts of each material type on the PRO’s cost obligations.
• Upon request, provide the PRO with records or other information necessary for the organization to meet its obligations.

The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) has been designated as the PRO to administer Colorado, Minnesota, California, and Oregon’s EPR programs. Oregon’s law is similar to others being enacted and may have a far-reaching chill in the paper industry. After Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed that state’s EPR into law, the AF&PA weighed in on the decision:

“This costly approach to EPR ignores the complexities of the state’s recycling system and the paper industry’s significant recycling achievements. The legislation also imposes fees on ‘paper products,’ like unprinted copy paper, which do not typically end up in recycling bins. As a member of the EPR Advisory Council, AF&PA looks forward to promoting practical, evidence-based implementation strategies to mitigate harm to Maryland’s recycling efforts.”

Implications for the Paper and Printing Industries

“Each law typically requires producers to initially register with the state and/or PRO by a given date,” according to a recent Covington compliance alert. “Each law then generally imposes a final compliance deadline upon which a producer may not sell covered products in or into the state unless that producer belongs to a PRO. Joining a PRO means that producers typically have obligations to report relevant data and pay fees to the PRO. There may be other requirements as well, such as meeting reduction targets or engaging community stakeholders.”

Fee structures are provided, and penalties for noncompliance with the EPR vary by state. Fees for paper recycling are comparatively low relative to metals, ceramics and other materials, with the exception of coated paper, which could cost up to .43/lb to recycle. In addition to costs, the paper and printing industry, which already boasts high recycling rates, faces other challenges under EPR laws, such as operational adjustments and administrative burden to stay compliant with EPR requirements.

AF&PA points out that the proposed EPR legislation in New York ignores the complexities of the state’s recycling system and the paper industry’s supply chain, and insufficient data is available to move forward with new programs. EPR programs, according to AF&PA, often treat highly recycled materials, such as paper, the same as hard-to-recycle materials. This can result in highly recycled materials subsidizing the cost of collection and recycling for materials with low recycling rates, with costs being passed on to consumers and taxpayers, ultimately.

While EPR laws aim to enhance environmental sustainability, it’s crucial for policymakers to consider the existing recycling efficiencies within the paper and printing industry. Collaborative efforts between industry stakeholders and regulatory bodies are crucial for developing EPR frameworks that acknowledge the industry’s contributions to recycling and ensure that new regulations do not inadvertently hinder its progress.

Two Sides North America aims to educate all types of consumers on the sustainability of paper, print, and paper-based packaging. Through fact sheets, original research, and news, the organization helps its members incorporate information about the sustainability of print and paper into messaging that effectively reaches consumers. Visit twosidesna.org for more information.

This article originally appeared in the July/August, 2025 issue of Mailing Systems Technology.