Packaging

June 30th, 2025

For over 15 years, PaintCare and the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) have worked together to support convenient paint recycling opportunities for households and businesses across 11 program states. PaintCare operates paint stewardship programs in CA, CT, CO, DC, ME, MN, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA. Two additional programs are currently being planned in Illinois and Maryland. To date, PaintCare has collected 82 million gallons of paint, keeping it out of the waste stream.

Q&A With PaintCare 

Q: For those newer to paint stewardship, can you give us a brief overview of PaintCare’s mission and how it operates within the framework of state-level extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws? 

A: PaintCare is the nonprofit organization that plans and operates paint stewardship programs in states that pass the paint stewardship law. In these program states, recycling paint is made more convenient for households, businesses, contractors, and others with unwanted, leftover paint. PaintCare operates a network of more than 2,500 drop-off sites to make it easy to responsibly manage leftover paint and keep it out of the waste stream. PaintCare currently collects more than 8 million gallons annually from 11 programs.   

The paint stewardship program is funded by a fee, called the PaintCare Fee, which is applied to the purchase price of each container of new paint sold in each state that has passed the paint stewardship law. The fee is paid to PaintCare by paint manufacturers and is then added to the wholesale and retail purchase price of paint, passing the cost of managing leftover paint to everyone who buys and uses it to ensure a level playing field.  

The fee funds all aspects of the paint stewardship program. This includes paint collection, transportation, recycling, public outreach, and program administration, as well as managing “legacy” paint—material that has been accumulating in homes and businesses since before the program began. There is no charge for dropping off paint at a PaintCare drop-off site.

Q: As more states consider EPR legislation, PaintCare is frequently referred to as a working model. What are the most important factors that have contributed to its long-term success, and what insights could be valuable for emerging EPR programs across other product categories? 

A: The PaintCare model has three key elements that contribute to its success: industry commitment, close coordination with stakeholders, and a clear vision for delivering a cost-effective and convenient program that maintains high standards.   

It cannot be overstated how important it has been to hold fast to the principles established during the PSI-structured dialogue between ACA and stakeholders in the early 2000s. It shaped the coatings industry’s commitment to making PaintCare what it is today. It established the need for industry to sustainably fund program operations through the PaintCare fee, dedicated to a public-purpose non-profit, and forged the premise for building on a foundation of state and local partnerships.   

Having a predictable, mutually agreed upon structure has allowed PaintCare to focus on details that matter, specifically considering what will make the program work best for each state. Being able to prioritize convenience and cost-effective service delivery should be a goal for every EPR program — and not merely for operational efficiency. For an emerging EPR program, the ability to maintain consistency and focus is critical. 

Q: EPR doesn’t stop at collection. What happens to the leftover paint once it enters your system—and how does PaintCare contribute to reuse, recycling, and proper end-of-life management?

A: Paint collected by PaintCare is managed according to a policy of highest, best use. This means that some of the better-quality paint is made available to consumers through reuse programs, and most of the paint is recycled.   

Water-based products (i.e., latex paint) make up 86% of the paint collected. Most of this paint is sent to processors and used to create recycled-content paint products. Last year 4% was reused, 79% was recycled into new paint, 4% was used as alternative daily landfill cover, 12% was landfilled, and less than 1% was sent to a waste-to-energy plant.  

Oil-based products (i.e., alkyd paint) make up 14% of the paint collected. Most of this paint is used as fuel at cement factories. Last year 5% was reused, 76% was used as fuel, 1% was recycled into new paint, and 18% was sent to a hazardous waste incinerator.

Q: What’s next for PaintCare? Are there new programs, state rollouts, or innovations on the horizon that PSI members and stakeholders should watch for? 

A: PaintCare is planning two additional paint stewardship programs in Illinois and Maryland. With the addition of Illinois and Maryland, PaintCare will be operating 13 programs in 12 states and the District of Columbia, bringing paint recycling to about one third of the US population. The Illinois Paint Stewardship Act was passed in 2023, and the program is expected to launch in December 2025. The Maryland Paint Stewardship Act was passed in 2024, and the program is expected to launch in April 2026.

—

For more information about PaintCare, please reach out to Abby Horick at ahorick@paint.org. 

June 16, 2025

The 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum, held this June in Chicago, marked more than just a milestone anniversary for PSI—it reflected a sea change in how we manage materials in the United States. Over two packed days, leaders from state and federal environmental agencies, corporations, recycling organizations, and environmental groups came together to exchange lessons, ask tough questions, and celebrate the movement’s momentum. 

With 146 extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws for 21 product categories now in place across the country, the Forum struck a balance between celebration and reality check. If the past two decades was focused on passing policy, the next will be defined by how well we put it into practice.

The Shift from Policy to Practice 

Policy champions took the stage to reflect on what it takes to advance legislation. Maryland State Senator Malcolm Augustine said during his keynote, “Compromise is when good policy is also good for business, the environment and consumers.” 

Senator Heidi Campbell of Tennessee underscored the challenge of navigating political polarization: “Everything is very political right now. But I believe that EPR does not need to be political as it serves the interest of all Tennesseans.” 

The conversation has truly shifted from “if” to “how.” Oregon’s packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) program—under the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (SB 582) is just weeks away from launching. Cheryl Grabham of Oregon DEQ put it plainly: “We are ready for program launch, which is 27 days away.”

Minnesota, Colorado, Maryland, and California are also knee-deep in implementation work. And as more states follow, the urgency to coordinate, share resources, and reduce duplication is stronger than ever. “So much of what we were able to accomplish in such a short time was because of the partnerships we have with all of you,” noted Zoe Heller of CalRecycle. 

This matters because effective EPR doesn’t just depend on well-written laws—it depends on how many pe

ople understand them, engage with them, and feel supported as they adapt. 

Producer Readiness: Facing Complexity with Collaboration 

One of the most powerful throughlines across sessions was how producers are adapting to new obligations. Data collection, supply chain coordination, and program reporting have quickly emerged as make-or-break elements for compliance. “We’ve never had to compile, collect, and characterize packaging data this way,” said Ken Brown of Illinois Tool Works. 

But while the work is undeniably complex, it’s not being done in isolation. “Get a partner, and a good partner. It is too complex,” advised Nathalie Dunand-Zaloum of Bel Group, a client of forum sponsor and PSI partner EVNIA Environmental Compliance Group. Producer responsibility organizations (PROs), compliance organizations, consultants, and state agencies are stepping in to offer guidance. 

This matters because implementation doesn’t happen in silos. EPR will succeed only if producers, local governments, and PROs learn and iterate together.

Safety at Stake:
W hy Batteries Can’t Wait 

The Forum also spotlighted one of the most urgent gaps in U.S. product stewardship: battery safety. Lithium-ion batteries are causing thousands of fires at recycling facilities every year. “There are an estimated 5,000 battery fires at recycling facilities every year,” said Shannon Crawford Gay of Waste Management. “Approximately every facility is dealing with 18 fires a year.” 

With only a few states tackling battery EPR so far, panelists warned that the pace of legislation is not keeping up with the scale of the problem. Meanwhile, insurance concerns, transportation barriers, and fire hazards continue to mount. 

This matters because packaging and battery systems don’t operate in separate universes. The new infrastructure we’re building—MRFs, collection systems, education programs—must be protected from the growing risks posed by batteries. 

From left to right: Susan Fife-Ferris (Seattle Public Utilities), David Stitzhal (Full Circle Environmental), Heather Trim (Zero Waste Washington), Rep. Liz Berry, Sego Jackson (Founding Member of the NWPSC), Sen. Liz Lovelett, Kara Steward (Dept. of Ecology), McKenna Morrigan (Seattle Public Utilities), Janine Bogar (Dept. of Ecology), Hannah Scholes (King County Solid Waste Division)

May 23rd, 2025

On May 17, 2025, Governor Bob Ferguson signed SB 5284, known as the Recycling Reform Act, into law — calling it the “biggest overhaul of our recycling system in decades.” Washington is now the seventh U.S. state to adopt a packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, following Maine, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maryland.

With this move, the entire U.S. West Coast is now covered by packaging EPR programs.

WHAT THE LAW DOES
Spearheaded by Representative Liz Berry (D-Seattle) and Senator Liz Lovelett (D-Anacortes), the law establishes an EPR system for residential paper and packaging products. It includes the following key provisions:

• Requires producers to join a Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) by July 1, 2026.
• Charges PROs with developing, implementing, and financing the program with oversight from the Washington State Department of Ecology and an Advisory Council.
• Mandates a statewide recycling collection list and curbside recycling for all households that already have curbside garbage service, potentially expanding access to hundreds of thousands of residents.
• Phases in producer reimbursement of at least 90% of program costs to service providers:
  • 50% by Feb. 15, 2030
  • 75% by Feb. 15, 2031
  • 90% by Feb. 15, 2032
• Includes exemptions for certain food and medical packaging, and materials with a reuse/recycling rate of 65% for three consecutive years (increasing to 70% in 2030).
• Requires MRFs processing over 25,000 tons/year to pay workers a “minimum industry standard compensation” starting in 2028.

KEY IMPLEMENTATION DATES

• Jan 1, 2026– Producers must appoint a PRO; Ecology establishes an Advisory Council.
• July 1, 2026 – Producers must be members of a PRO.
• Dec 31, 2026 – Ecology completes a preliminary statewide recycling needs assessment.
• Dec 31, 2027 – Ecology completes a full needs assessment.
• Oct 1, 2028 – PRO submits plan to Ecology.
• Jan 1, 2030 – Full implementation of the approved program.
• 2032 – Equity study due to legislature; full reimbursement phase-in complete.

WHY IT MATTERS
Washington’s recycling system has struggled due to inconsistent acceptance lists, limited funding, and market challenges, with local governments and residents footing much of the bill. By shifting most of the financial and operational responsibility to producers, this law aims to make the system more efficient, equitable, and sustainable. It also creates a model that aligns with neighboring states’ EPR efforts, supporting regional harmonization.

QUOTES
“The passage of the Recycling Reform Act is a huge milestone for a more sustainable, responsible, and equitable recycling system in Washington,” said Adrian Tan, Co-Chair of the Northwest Product Stewardship Council. “We’ve spent years working on this policy – learning from best practices around the world and the other states that have passed EPR for packaging, and adapting it so that it would work for producers and the state’s waste management system.”

“We’re incredibly proud of the coalition that helped make this possible,” said McKenna Morrigan, Policy Advisor at Seattle Public Utilities “This legislation positions Washington as a leader in responsible materials management.”

“This landmark law marks another major victory for producer responsibility in the U.S.,” said Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder of the Product Stewardship Institute. “Washington’s leadership sends a clear message: the time has come for producers to take meaningful responsibility for the packaging they put into the marketplace. This policy is a smart, scalable solution that will improve recycling, reduce waste, and level the playing field nationwide.”

This blog post was prepared by Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), which supports policies that advance product stewardship and extended producer responsibility. 

By Kristina Benoist, Marketing & Communications Director

March 26, 2025

California’s Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) was designed to be a groundbreaking shift in how plastic waste is managed, requiring producers—not taxpayers—to take responsibility for packaging waste. However, less than two years after its enactment in 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered a revision, citing rising compliance costs, delays in implementation, and growing resistance from both industry and environmental groups.

While this decision has generated debate, it does not signal a reversal of producer responsibility in California or across the country. Instead, California is refining SB 54—making targeted adjustments to improve the feasibility of implementation while maintaining the law’s core objectives.

ADJUSTMENTS, NOT A ROLLBACK 

When SB 54 was signed into law in 2022, it introduced some of the most progressive plastic reduction and recycling targets in the country, including: 

• A 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032. 

• A requirement that 65% of covered materials be recycled and certified through an approved process by 2032. 

• A $5 billion producer-funded mitigation fund over a 10-year period, specifically $500 million annually from 2027 to 2037, to address the environmental impacts of plastic pollution and support affected communities.
  

As implementation began, producers raised financial and operational feasibility concerns. In response, Governor Newsom declined to approve the rules as drafted, acknowledging industry concerns and directing regulatory agencies to refine them before they could proceed to the California Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling for formal adoption. 

Rather than a rollback, California is expected to make targeted revisions that ease the transition for producers while preserving the law’s key goals. 

The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) review process, which is standard for regulatory changes, could take up to a year. However, to accelerate certain adjustments, an “urgency bill” could be introduced in the California Senate, allowing a limited number of critical revisions to be fast-tracked. 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EPR IN OTHER STATES 

While California’s experience with SB 54 is being closely watched, this revision process is unlikely to slow momentum for EPR nationwide. States like Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, and Maine are continuing to quickly move forward with their own packaging EPR programs, each tailored to their specific regulatory and economic landscapes. 

WHAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED 

California Senator Ben Allen—the lead sponsor of SB 54—recently outlined proposed adjustments and clarifications in a letter to Jeff Fielkow, CEO of Circular Action Alliance (CAA). These proposals were part of a negotiation effort to encourage CAA’s support for the draft regulations. While not changes to the law, the suggestions emphasized collaboration, regulatory flexibility, and timeline adjustments to support smoother implementation. CAA ultimately declined to endorse the proposals.  

Key points included:
1. Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) Plan Adjustments

The deadline for the initial PRO plan submission is proposed to be moved to July 1, 2026, providing producers more time to develop their compliance strategies.

2. Financial and Reporting Adjustments

Temporary Simplified Eco-Modulation Fees – A simplified fee structure will be used until the end of 2029 to ease the transition for producers.

3. Annual Reports & Fee Schedules: 

Annual Budget and Fee Schedules – Producers must submit budget and fee schedules annually by October 1, 2026, separate from the full program report.

4. Compliance and Data Collection

Source Reduction Data – Producers must submit baseline source reduction data before the PRO plan submission deadline of July 1, 2026. CalRecycle will have the authority to update this baseline before 2027.

5. De Minimis Exemption

CalRecycle will clarify its current rules for small producers (de minimis criteria) through emergency regulations before the July 1, 2026 deadline for PRO plan submission.

6. Regulatory & Technological Considerations

• Chemical Recycling Review: Any company using chemical recycling technologies will need to fund and commission peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate compliance. 

• Reusable Packaging Standards: Durability standards for reusable food serviceware will be refined. 

• Life Sciences Exemption: Secondary and tertiary packaging used in life sciences (e.g., medical and pharmaceutical industries) are proposed to be explicitly exempted. 

7. Reporting Flexibility
Annual, not Monthly, Reporting: To reduce administrative burden, producers will submit data annually rather than in monthly increments. 

WHAT’S NEXT FOR SB 54? 

With the Governor signaling the need for refinements to SB 54, the next steps focus on how these adjustments will be implemented. The process will move forward through multiple avenues, each operating at a different pace: 

• Legislative Action – Lawmakers will introduce a bill to formally adopt revisions, incorporating stakeholder input to ensure the changes balance feasibility with the law’s original intent. 

• Regulatory Adjustments – CalRecycle and the advisory board will refine program rules, clarify compliance requirements, and establish updated guidelines for producers through the regulatory process. 

• Urgency Bill Option – If certain revisions require immediate implementation, an urgency bill could be introduced in the California Senate to fast-track specific changes, allowing them to take effect sooner than the standard legislative timeline. 

• Administrative Review – The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) will oversee regulatory refinements. While this review process can take up to a year, select revisions may be expedited depending on legislative and agency priorities. 

The combination of these pathways ensures that SB 54 moves forward with adjustments that improve feasibility while keeping California’s producer responsibility framework intact. 

LOOKING AHEAD 

Extended deadlines and regulatory flexibility ensure that producers and the PRO can better prepare for compliance. Clarity on financial obligations helps industries transition smoothly into the eco-modulation fee structure. More specific guidelines on exemptions, reporting, and technology provide clearer expectations for producers and regulators. The continued dialogue and adjustments reinforce the state’s commitment to a workable and effective EPR system under SB 54. 

California’s adjustments to SB 54 will shape how the state fine-tunes its approach to producer responsibility, but its unique economic and regulatory environment means that its experience will likely not dictate how other states implement their programs. These adjustments intend to make SB 54 more easily implementable while still advancing California’s ambitious waste reduction and recycling goals. 

PSI diligently monitors and tracks all legislative developments, stakeholder responses and the evolution of these laws, not only in California, but for all 50 states.

Stay connected with PSI for updates on California’s plastics EPR law, industry reactions, and the future of producer responsibility nationwide. Want to learn how this legislation—and similar efforts in other states—could impact your business? Reach out to Darla Arians at darla.arians@productstewardship.us to explore how we can work together.

Earlier this month, over 200 globally recognized experts gathered in Portland, Oregon for PSI’s 12th U.S. Product Stewardship Forum. Speakers presented throughout two days of intensive sessions on a wide range of topics covering the most important trends in producer responsibility policy and programs. While all of the sessions were insightful and high quality, the following notable quotes were made during a few of the top sessions.

Extending Responsibility: Eco-Modulated Fees and Responsible End Markets

“Eco-modulation must go beyond incentives, it is about making sure the fee structure reflects the real costs of managing the packaging material and its impact in the value chain.”
Genevieve Dionne, Éco Enterprise Quebec

“Eco-modulation works, period. But it could be gentler, and it could be less complicated for the producers and other market players.”
Gauravi Saini, Reclay StewardEdge

Perspectives on Plastic Recycling – From Mechanical to Chemical

“Mechanical and chemical recycling need to be complementary solutions. The complexities of plastic waste require both to deliver a truly circular economy”
Maranda Demuth, Eastman

“We need to have a robust conversation on whether chemical recycling is worth its environmental impacts.”
Celeste Meiffren-Swango, Environment Oregon

The PRO’s Role in the Circular Economy

“Having a not-for-profit producer-governed organization that supports producers in meeting their EPR commitments ensures efficient and effective recycling systems are in place where plastics and other packaging materials are collected, recycled, and returned back to producers for use as recycled content.”
Allen Langdon, Circular Materials

“We are working with local governments and recyclers to determine how to effectively support recycling systems.”
Shane Buckingham, Circular Action Alliance

“The hallmark of successful systems is a focus on the goals and the desired outcomes.”
Leslie Huska, GreenDot North America

Packaging EPR Implementation in the United States

“The Oregon law prioritizes sustainability above circularity. There is potential for these ideas to be in conflict and the Oregon law aims to achieve broader sustainability objectives. If we pursue circularity in a narrow way and just focus on recycling and composting, there might be some unintended outcomes.”
David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

“In California, we are focused on the reduction of plastic pollution and overall production of packaging materials in the state. The California law requires that 100% of packaging sold into the state of California is either recyclable or compostable, by 2032.”
Rachel Machi Wagoner, CalRecycle

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Throughout the rich and diverse discussions at the conference, the following important issues were highlighted as they are becoming increasingly important in the field of EPR.

• Policy Harmonization: All stakeholders expressed the importance of identifying common elements of all EPR bills and laws. Policy harmonization is not only crucial for increasing the efficiency of existing and future programs, but also for ensuring alignment across jurisdictions, reducing consumer confusion, and enabling effective program comparison.
• Measuring Success: Congruent with the need for policy harmonization is the need to define how the success of a program or policy is measured. It is essential to identify what needs to be measured, ensure that data collection is accurate and consistent, and provide all stakeholders with relevant information.
• Producer Presence: As the field of EPR continues to advance, it will be necessary to directly involve producers, along with associations, in the conversation. Without representation from key producers, a valuable perspective on the field is lost. The interest of individual producers and their associations are essential to advancing effective EPR policy.

WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING ABOUT THE CONFERENCE?

We are shifting into a new phase of the EPR movement with rapid success and the need for engaged stakeholders and a highly knowledgeable community. The PSI Forum will continue to be a space for those eager to learn and contribute as we lead this movement forward. Here are some thoughts from 2023 PSI Forum attendees on the importance of event:

“PSI did it again, assembling the world’s experts on EPR (those actually engaged in making it happen) and presenting two days of rich, productive conversations about the current state of affairs in the U.S., Canada and Europe and where things are headed, on a wide variety of products as well as packaging. Kudos to PSI for being able to bring such diverse parties to the conference in a series of stimulating panels. PSI continues to be THE place to go for expertise, ability to bridge government, business and advocacy groups, and the many connections, contacts and synergies possible.”
Dave Galvin, former PSI board president

“PSI’s conference enables State Environmental Staff, PROs, Recyclers and NGOs to collaborate on EPR. With the growth of EPR, this conference is becoming essential to those involved with environmental policy and execution.”
David Bender, CEO Circular Polymers by Ascend

“Excellent forum about all aspects around EPR. Competent speakers, lively discussions about the hot topics, engaged participants, perfect networking. The place to go in the US!”
Joachim Quoden, Managing Director EXPRA

“The 2023 US Product Stewardship Forum provided a wonderful opportunity to connect and have meaningful and in-depth conversations with others working to find solutions to how we can move the solid waste industry from a linear (extract, make, use, dispose) system to a more circular economy. Learning from each other and working together, we can take actions that have long-term positive results for our customers and the environment!”
Susan Fife-Ferris, Seattle Public Utilities, Washington

“Fun, productive, and a truly unique meeting of the minds from across the globe!”
Maya Buelow, Lane County Waste Management, Oregon

“Scott and the PSI team put together an excellent event. The structure was just right to allow attendees to choose which sessions they wanted to attend without having to choose from overlapping sessions. Looking forward to the next Forum two years from now!”
Doug Kobold, California Product Stewardship Council

CONTINUE THIS WORK WITH US

PSI will continue to lead these conversations with other experts through our webinar series this fall. Our webinars will cover a range of pressing issues and we look forward to your participation. For more information, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder of the Product Stewardship Institute, debuted his recently published book, Perspectives on Product Stewardship: Navigating an extended producer responsibility path to a circular economy, at the 2023 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum. This book is a must-read for all EPR professionals. Click here to purchase your copy! If you are a PSI Member or Partner, contact info@productstewardship.us for 30% discount.

PHOTOS FROM THE FORUM:

by Jim Asali, President and CEO of the Pack Green Coalition, www.packgreen.org

In an era dominated by ominous news of the impacts of climate change—most recently evidenced by devastating fires in Maui—and a legitimate plastic pollution crisis that appears to have no end, Pack Green is here to offer a bit of encouragement. Sustainable packaging innovation is on the rise and offers smart alternatives to single-use plastics that far too often clog our landfills and pervade our lands and waterways.  In 2023, we have happily taken note of environmentally-friendly packaging advancement across three major sectors: consumer packaged goods, produce, and beverages. Here, we highlight promising developments in each of these spaces:

CPG

American toy manufacturer Mattel—the creator of Barbie—has publicly pledged to (1) achieve 100% recycled, recyclable, or bio-based plastic materials in its products and packaging by 2030, (2) maintain 95% recycled or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified content in the paper and wood fiber used in its products and packaging, and (3) reduce plastic packaging by 25% per product by 2030. In addition to its packaging and materials pledges, the company has also started the Mattel Playback scheme, which seeks to keep the toys and materials in circulation longer through recycling. The program currently accepts Barbie, Fisher-Price, Matchbox and MEGA toys for recycling, and is available in the US, Canada, France, Germany and the UK.

LEGO—the world’s leading toy manufacturer—announced in its annual results that it has begun to transition to paper-based bags in LEGO boxes, putting it on track to make all of its packaging from more sustainable sources by the end of 2025. In its factories, it has continued to invest in reducing waste, operating more energy efficiently, and expanding production and use of solar energy.

As part of its commitment to sustainability, consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble has pledged by 2030 to reduce its use of virgin petroleum plastic in its packaging by 50%. As part of this process P&G has invested in technology to improve the efficacy of post-consumer recycled content to more closely match that of virgin materials.

Produce

Paper companies have long embraced the inherent advantages of fiber-based packaging over plastic, even as the latter has sought to make inroads into grocery and produce protection. Two of these makers of sustainable paper packaging solutions are Georgia-based WestRock and Graphic Packaging International. WestRock creates packaging for several industries, including food, beverage, healthcare, retail, beauty, and more. Its EverGrow® Collection includes punnets, tills, totes, and trays produced specifically for growers, distributors, and retail produce brands. EverGrow® is made from renewable paperboard and allows for curbside recyclability when emptied and flattened, offering an alternative for hard-to-recycle plastics.

The same goes for the ProducePack™ line of fresh produce packaging from Graphic Packaging International. ProducePack™ is a line of paper-based fruit packaging that offers a variety of sustainable, shelf-ready solutions for fresh fruit and vegetables. In addition, the ProducePack™ Punnet includes a wide range of applications to deliver an effective alternative to traditional plastic/acetate produce packaging for retailers and producers.

Beverage Containers

Holland, Michigan-based Boxed Water™ is emerging as a leader in the transition away from plastic beverage bottles. Currently, there are roughly 38 billion single-use plastic bottles landing in U.S. landfills and waterways each year, a figure that takes into account the current recycling rate of single use plastic water bottles of around 25%. Boxed Water has sought to address this using simple formula: the least amount of plastic and the most renewable materials, the better the package. Its box is FSC-certified and 92% plant-based, made from paperboard and paper waste. The FSC- and ISCC-certified water box cap is made of pine tree waste, harvested responsibly from Nordic forests. The result is a low carbon-impact product that is also 100% reusable and recyclable.

In the 2010s a consortium of packaging, bottling and beverage manufacturers—including the Carlsberg Group—worked together to create an innovative paper bottle. The result was PABOCO (Paper Bottling Company), which has developed bio-based bottle prototypes in Europe and has invited additional partners to join in its efforts, including Coca-Cola, L’Oreal, Pernod Ricard, The Absolut Company, and Procter & Gamble.

In yet another encouraging development, American food and beverage company PepsiCo has unveiled its plans to replace plastic rings on beverage multipacks across the US and Canada with recyclable paper-based designs. In 2022, Coors Light announced that it will globally shift away from plastic rings to cardboard-wrap, a move the company said will save 1.7 million pounds of plastic waste annually by 2025.

Conclusion

While the problem of plastic pollution is multi-faceted and may seem overwhelming, we know that the solution will come down to the basics of reducing virgin output, improving a fractured and anemic recycling system, and increasing re-use as we move away from our throwaway culture. Only through a concerted effort to combine the foregoing dynamics will we be able to achieve circularity and ameliorate the adverse impacts environmental, health, and aesthetic impacts of our drastic overuse of plastic packaging. The advent of the products and innovations described in this post gives us reason to believe we are beginning to make progress.

by Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder 

PSI is excited to announce our partnership with GreenDot, a full-circle EPR management and recycling solutions provider in Europe and North America. GreenDot was founded in Germany in 1990 under the name Der Grüne Punkt (The Green Dot). There, it created the world’s first nationwide EPR program for household packaging, including hard-to-recycle plastics like flexible films. Der Grüne Punkt continues to design and operate every aspect of EPR management—including collection, sortation, and recycling—and now services more than 80 million people. The German EPR packaging model is considered the forerunner of the European Union’s current regulatory structure. It has inspired more than 30 packaging recovery organizations in Europe over the last 30 years. 

In August of 2022, Der Grüne Punkt was purchased by Circular Resources and rebranded as Green Dot Global, which oversees a growing list of international affiliates that includes operations in North America and Europe. The company plans to expand operations into additional countries around the world with the aim of providing multinational consumer product brands solutions to meet their global recycling and recycled content targets.  

GreenDot currently serves over 100,000 customers with a suite of EPR management services—including guidance on EPR compliance obligations; transparent tracking of collection, sorting, and recycling volumes; documentation of CO2 equivalent reduction through recycling; and certification of recycled content in plastic packaging. Their solutions aim to accelerate plastics circularity, even for challenging materials like flexible films. Annually, GreenDot recovers more than one million tons of household packaging waste and processes over 70,000 tons of post-consumer plastic packaging and LDPE. GreenDot’s recycling operations save over 600,000 tons of CO2 equivalents annually. GreenDot’s comprehensive approach—built on a passion for measurable change and problem-solving—helped drive Germany’s plastic packaging recycling rate from 3% in 1991 to over 60% today.  

Now, they are bringing their decades of hands-on, real-life expertise to improve recycling in the United States, where the plastics recycling rate lingers under 10%. GreenDot will leverage its experience and technologies to develop effective, community-tailored collection and recycling solutions that benefit brand companies and make a lasting impact on underserved markets in the U.S. 

*** 

GreenDot is a Platinum Sponsor of the 2023 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum. We hope you’ll join them in Portland, Oregon September 11-14, where you can meet some of their leadership team members in person: Leslie Hushka, Managing Director of Green Dot North America, and Chief Sustainability Officer of Green Dot Global Group; Geoffrey Inch, Vice President, Sustainability & Policy; J.J. Rawlinson, Sustainability Director. 

Contact info@green-dot.us to connect with Green Dot North America leadership. 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing & Communications Director

Next week, world leaders will gather for the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. Although PSI was invited to attend and contributed to discussions leading up to the event, we were unable to make the trip.

INC-2 will take place from May 29 to June 2 at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquarters in Paris. This meeting will be followed by INC-3 in Kenya in November and INC-4 in Canada in April 2024. At each meeting, EPR will be front and center.

Recently, the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network shared analysis of proposals submitted by UN member states, which showed that 60% referenced EPR. OPLN indicated that the number was probably higher because those that referenced “product stewardship” rather than “EPR” were not included in the evaluation.

Critical to the conversation is the Peak Plastics report published by Economist Impact and The Nippon Foundation earlier this year as part of their Back to Blue initiative. This report showed that on their own, many of the policies being considered — including Single Use Plastic Product (SUPP) bans, EPR for packaging, and an aggressive carbon tax on virgin plastic — are insufficient to affect the projected doubling of plastic consumption by 2050. However, when implemented together they could significantly reduce consumption: “EPR is…vital, as it will improve waste collection and increase recycling rates, which will curtail plastic leakage into the environment.” This is in keeping with PSI’s perspective on EPR for packaging, which is most effective when implemented alongside additional measures such as reuse strategies. 

The genesis of these discussions began at the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2) in 2022, when UNEA Resolution 5/14 was adopted. Its goal is to develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution by 2024. Without significant intervention, the UN projects a tripling of the amount of plastic waste entering the marine environment — from as much as 14 million tons per year in 2016 to as much as 37 million tons in 2040.

by Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder

Although we haven’t seen a new packaging EPR law enacted yet, eight states introduced legislation in 2023 – and Maryland just became the fifth state to move on it. On May 10, Governor Wes Moore signed legislation to establish a government funded needs assessment to be developed by a consultant that will determine the need for new recycling collection and processing infrastructure, along with the costs. The law also requires the establishment of a producer responsibility organization to coordinate producers and a separate advisory council, established by the Maryland Department of Environment that is tasked with reporting its findings and recommendations to the Governor by December 1, 2024 for consideration in 2025. 

There have been four laws passed over the past two years – in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California – and Maryland’s new law sets the state up to join them in 2024. Previously this year, Maryland’s state legislature considered a packaging EPR bill, SB 0222, which had more elements of a solid EPR bill. It would have required producers to reimburse local governments up to 50% for collection, transportation, and processing of packaging materials – including plastic, paper, glass, and metals. Originally introduced in 2021 as HB36 and reintroduced in 2022, the goal of the legislation was to reduce material and product waste by 25% or more by 2035. This bill did not pass, but SB 222, the EPR packaging study bill, did. 

EPR is snowballing, partially in part due to a growing awareness of the circular economy, which has the potential to help turn around environmental crises like climate change and pollution: Today, the global manufacture and use of consumer products generate 20% of greenhouse gas emissions annually but the circular economy is projected to reduce 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, EPR is the “only proven and likely way to provide funding that is dedicated, ongoing, and sufficient” to develop a circular economy.

In keeping with circular economy principles, packaging EPR legislation, which will now be studied in Maryland, aims to reduce waste and increase reuse, recycling, and composting. In British Columbia, where packaging EPR has been in place since 2014, 90% of packaging is recycled. These programs are funded by producers and typically managed through a producer responsibility organization (PRO), with multi-stakeholder advisory council input and government oversight.  

In Maine, the first state to enact such a law, multinational companies like Amazon and Walmart, which ship packaged goods into the state, will soon be required to reimburse municipalities for the cost of collecting, reusing, and recycling boxes and containers (small businesses are exempt from the fee). We will keep tracking the evolution of packaging EPR in Maryland. 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing & Communications Director

A new survey commissioned by Covanta, a PSI partner, found that nearly half of Americans want to hold corporations more accountable for climate action — including 63% who believe companies should have strong sustainability platforms. With the global green technology and sustainability market expected to be worth $417 billion by 2030, companies are lining up their “green marketing” claims. As a result, “greenwashing” – marketing false or misleading claims about sustainability – is also on the rise.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides were established in 1992 to help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims – these include guidance on how to message about what can be recycled. However, the types of packaging that brands now use have evolved significantly since the Guides were last updated, in 2012. So, when the FTC invited public comments regarding its review of the Green Guides, PSI – and the Pack Green Coalition, a PSI partner – submitted analysis.

Our shared key priority is packaging EPR legislation, which holds manufacturers – known as “producers” – responsible for waste management and recycling, and incentivizes the incorporation of environmental considerations into product design, while educating the public about what can actually be recycled. In British Columbia, where packaging EPR has been in place since 2014, 90% of packaging is recycled.

In 2016, PSI developed model packaging EPR legislation, then updated it in 2019 with input from industry and government. PSI’s model eventually informed state EPR for PPP legislation, either indirectly, as in Maine and California, or somewhat more directly as in Oregon and Colorado.

Formed in 2022, the Pack Green Coalition educates and advocates for meaningful policies and laws to advance the replacement of unnecessary plastic in packaging supply chains with sustainable alternatives, playing a critical role in advancing the global transition to a circular economy.

A critical component of EPR for PPP laws and programs is consumer education about what can and cannot be recycled. Because of this, accurate federal guidelines are critical. PSI and PGC urged the FTC to update the Green Guides with more concrete guidance to marketers to accurately represent the circularity of the materials they use and avoid disrupting the recycling system.

Specifically, we requested updated guidance on “recyclable” claims. Currently, the Guides do not prevent misleading recyclability claims, so revising the criteria is imperative. For example, under the current requirements in the Guides, marketers can use unqualified recyclable claims if the material is accepted by a “substantial majority” (60%) of recycling facilities where the product is sold. Polypropylene packaging had a recycling rate of only 2.7% in the U.S. in 2018, but more than 60% of consumers had access to recycling facilities that accepted polypropylene tubs, bottles, jugs, and jars. There is a stark disconnect between materials that qualify to be labeled as “recyclable” and materials that are recycled. Mere “availability” of recycling facilities for a particular material is an inadequate indicator for whether that material can be credibly claimed to be recyclable.

“Recyclable” presently does not mean a product is actually getting recycled. In addition, the recycling rate for a given material should be based not on the amount collected but, rather, on the material’s (1) actual reclamation at appropriate facilities that meet the requirements of the Basel Convention and (2) re-entry into the commerce stream. In addition, plastic items should meet the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ APR Design® Guide for recyclability.

We urged the FTC to revise the Guides to require that a product may only be labelled as “recyclable” (whether through text or symbol) if it meets the recyclability thresholds mentioned above and if the material type and form routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging, as California mandated through SB 343. These requirements will increase circularity of the U.S. economy and instill greater confidence and trust in the U.S. recycling system.