Looming deadline for state packaging laws places reporting pressure on CPGs

Time is running out for CPGs, including some food and beverage brands, importers and distributors, to meet a major compliance milestone for a patchwork of state laws that shift management of discarded packaging from municipalities to producers.

Under extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws now passed in seven states, and pending in many more, qualifying companies must track, report and, in some cases, pay a fee for the packaging they place on the market. The fees will assist with end-of-life management, such as recycling infrastructure and reducing pollution, as well as consumer outreach and education and end-market development of recycled materials.

For six of those states – California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington – the first major reporting deadline of May 31 looms. The reporting deadline for Maine is expected to be in August.

While the laws, including what they require and who they apply to, vary, they share a common goal: shifting the cost of waste management upstream to producers, rather than continuing to place the burden on taxpayers and municipalities where their products are purchased.

The speed with which the state laws are being enacted, and the differences between them, are creating a compliance challenge for companies that might not yet be fully prepared.

“EPR is no longer something companies can monitor from a policy standpoint, as it was a couple of years ago. It now sits on the reporting calendar and in some states, already affects fees, such as Oregon, Colorado and California … with other states following suit,” Ethan Redden, material circularity and green business lead with BSI, warned during an April 14 webinar hosted by the International Dairy Deli Bakery Association.

Who must file reports?

Who must comply with each EPR law depends on the state and where in the supply chain each party sits, but most states take a tiered approach to determining responsible parties.

“Under EPR laws, a ‘producer’ is generally defined as any entity that manufacturers, imports or sells goods or products using packaging made from a list of ‘covered materials,’” the law firm Holland & Knight explains in a recent alert.

But this can quickly become complicated.

“Typically, any entity in the state that manufactures a product using covered packaging is the primary entity responsible for compliance. If the manufacturer is not in the state, the company that owns or licenses the brand or trademark under which the product is sold in the state is the primary entity responsible for compliance. If there is still no applicable party, responsibility typically falls to the person who sells or distributes the product in the state,” according to Holland & Knight.

This may mean that the producer is the entity that first sold the packaging into the state or it could be the entity that packaged and shipped the item to the consumer, or it could be the third-party seller depending on the state. This also means different entities may be responsible for different parts of the packaging, such as shipping packaging versus the container for the product, underscoring the importance that stakeholders carefully review each state regulation, Redden said.

He noted that state-by-state scope differences may trip up teams.

“Refrain from generalization and keep to the specific rules of covered materials for each state,” he stressed.

What must they report

The six states requiring reports by May 31 have identified the Circular Action Alliance as the producer responsibility organization (PRO) that will help producers comply with the law by creating, financing and implementing responsibility plans and waste management programs for their members.

The CAA will expect both qualitative and quantitative data in the producers’ reports, according to Redden.

Qualitative data includes affiliated or associated producers, brands, methods to estimate supply and weights, subsidiaries when aggregation is permitted and assumptions, adjustments and validation approach.

Quantitative data will include supply volume for the relevant data year (in this case 2025), packaging weights by component or accepted estimate methods, total reported supply by reporting category, state specific fields – such as PCR or source-reduced items, and evidence files to support substantiation if requested, Redden explained.

Pulling everything together

He added that identifying the right data to submit is only part of the challenge – the other is finding it.

“One reason EPR gets delayed often is the data does not live all in one place,” but rather across functional departments, which “can be a headache,” Redden said.

For example, sales may have the data on units by SKUs, state and channel for the data year, while the compliance department has the portal preparation, state rules and evidence files, and the finance department has the entity structure, brands, affiliates, exemptions and budgeting, he explained.

Common pitfalls

Recognizing that compliance with different state regulations is frustrating, Redden shared five common compliance pitfalls he sees when helping companies prepare their reports.

The first is assuming who qualifies as a ‘producer’ based on the supplier name instead of the state hierarchy.

Second is failing to inventory service packaging, food serviceware and shipping packaging separately.

Third is missing smaller components, such as inserts, sleeves, lids and labels.

A fourth area where teams are exposed is missing non-consumer and shipping packaging.

Lastly, he warns against assumptions not documented well enough for substantiation requests.

Practical controls to avoid these risks include creating a single matrix before building weights; separating consumer, service, food-service and shipping formats in the packaging master; requiring co-manufacturers and suppliers to provide missing component weights; and retaining a clear methodology memo and source files tied to reported values.