How UK Extended Producer Responsibility Impacts Retail

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is entering its first charging year from October 2025, reshaping how UK retailers and manufacturers fund packaging waste. 

This policy shift places more responsibility on producers and retailers to manage the entire lifecycle of the products they sell, especially packaging, with the aim of reducing environmental impact.

EPR is a policy approach where producers are held accountable for the environmental effects of their products throughout their lifecycle.

This includes the design, production, use and disposal phases.

Under new regulations, responsibility for managing packaging waste, including its collection, recycling and disposal, is shifting from local authorities to producers and retailers.

EPR's impact on retailers

For retailers, EPR introduces major changes.

Businesses are now required to report detailed data on the types and quantities of packaging they place on the market.

This data will be used to calculate fees, which reflect the cost of collecting, sorting and recycling packaging waste.

EPR introduces recurring fees for packaging, based on the type and volume of materials, with detailed reporting required each year.

All materials incur fees, although glass typically faces relatively higher per-tonne charges. 

Industry estimates suggest total EPR-related charges could reach about US$1.38bn a year, with glass packaging accounting for up to US$625m despite representing less than 5% of packaging by volume. 

On a per-item basis, indicative fees for a single 750ml glass bottle are roughly US$0.11–US$0.14, excluding closures and secondary packaging such as cardboard. 

The new system is designed to incentivise the use of easily recyclable packaging, encouraging businesses to rethink their packaging choices in favour of more sustainable options.

The British Retail Consortium (BRC), which represents the UK's biggest retailers, has warned that a large share of EPR-related costs could be passed on to consumers. 

Administrative and compliance pressures

EPR brings with it a range of new administrative demands.

Retailers must implement systems to accurately track and report packaging data.

This process can be complex, particularly for businesses with extensive product lines or those sourcing packaging from multiple suppliers.

Retailers say the administrative workload is already growing.

Around 85% of retailers surveyed report a sharp increase in resource demand for compliance.

Though enforcement of recyclability assessment reporting is paused for the first half of 2025, other requirements remain live.

Meanwhile, the OECD says: "Decades of experience with EPR suggests that, if done properly, it increases transparency, mobilises significant financial resources and consequently increases collection and material recovery rates of targeted products."

Calls for investment in recycling infrastructure

While the aim of EPR is to increase recycling rates and reduce waste, success depends on the presence of robust recycling infrastructure.

Many retailers and industry groups are calling for greater investment in recycling facilities and technologies to ensure that collected packaging can actually be processed and reused.

BRC members instead say they want accountability for how funds are spent, calling on government to ring-fence EPR revenue so it flows directly into local recycling infrastructure and service improvements.

Andrew Opie, BRC Director for Food and Sustainability, 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, industry leaders such as Craig Woodburn, Sustainability Director at Molson Coors, point out that EPR highlight the need to design for circularity, reduce material use and increase recyclability.

They argue that, alongside future deposit return schemes, effective and fair returnable systems can deliver long-term benefits even if there is an initial burden, provided business and government act in partnership.

Speaking to Sustainability Magazine, Craig says: “In the UK, regulations like Extended Producer Responsibility, meaning businesses now bear 100% of a fee based on the weight and type of packaging they place on the market – from glass bottles to cans.

"This shift is designed to incentivise more sustainable packaging choices, and it underlines the importance of reducing material use and increasing recyclability across the industry.”

Craig adds that EPR supports closed loop recycling – where packaging is reused rather than discarded – and aligns with the sector’s long-term goals.

“The benefit is optimising the raw material used, the benefit of closed loop recycling, which is why the systems such as extended producer responsibility and in future deposit return schemes are there," Craig continues. 

"So, I can see long term, with effective and fair recyclable or returnable systems in place, the benefits would outweigh the downsides, but collectively there are extra things we need to do as a wider industry in partnership with government to help support and make the ambition successful because initially there will be an extra burden.”