If it is the first time you hear the term, Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, read the next few paragraphs, otherwise you can scroll to the next section!
EPR is based on a simple principle: responsibility for a product should not end at the point of sale. Under an EPR system, producers, importers or brand owners are made legally and financially responsible for the collection, recycling or other management of their products or packaging once these become waste. (OECD)
This does not mean that producers necessarily absorb the cost of waste management. In practice, EPR fees are generally incorporated into product prices and therefore passed, at least partly and often largely, to consumers. EPR changes the way the cost of waste management is collected and allocated: instead of relying only on general public budgets, the cost is linked directly to the products and packaging placed on the market. Yet, one should not understand EPR as only a fee collection scheme for waste management. Depending on how EPR is set up, it can have different types of structures, including:
- In some systems, producers must ensure collection, take-back, reuse, recycling or treatment of the waste generated by their products.
- In others, producers fulfill that obligation collectively by joining a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). They pay fees to the PRO, and the PRO organizes collection, sorting, recycling and reporting on their behalf.
- In some cases, producers pay a levy or fee into a public or quasi-public fund, which then finances waste-management activities.
- Many EPR systems combine financial responsibility with mandatory recycling targets, take-back obligations, recycled-content requirements, reporting and design incentives.
The concept of Extended Producer Responsibility was developed by Swedish researcher Thomas Lindhqvist, who coined the principle around 1990. Germany’s 1991 Packaging Ordinance then became one of the first major practical applications of what would become modern EPR, requiring manufacturers and distributors to take back and arrange for the recycling of packaging.
More than three decades later, EPR has become an important waste-policy instrument across economies.
The EU: harmonized legislation, fragmented administration
Packaging EPR is not new in Europe. Under the previous EU framework, particularly the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and the Waste Framework Directive, Member States had already established national producer-responsibility systems.
The new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2025/40, tries to create a more harmonized EU framework. It introduces common definitions and requirements and provides greater consistency in producer registration and reporting. However, due to existing administrative fragmentation related to Article 44, producers must register in every Member State where they first make packaging or packaged products available. This makes practical experience of the regulated company far less harmonized. In our previous article we discuss this complication and a potential solution in more details.
In the next couple of sections we take a brief look at examples outside the EU.
Norway: using a plastic-bag fee to finance environmental action
The Norwegian Retailers’ Environment Fund is financed through fees paid by participating retailers on plastic carrier bags. In economic terms, those costs are ultimately reflected in what consumers pay for the bags.
The revenue is then used to finance projects aimed at reducing plastic consumption, preventing litter, improving recycling and developing circular solutions. The Fund reports that its financing has supported hundreds of projects, while plastic-bag consumption has also fallen significantly.
The Fund also finances projects outside Norway. For example, its resources have supported work implemented through the Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions on plastic-waste management and related policy development.
Nepal: building an EPR system for plastic packaging
Nepal provides a particularly interesting example because it has gone through several stages of plastic-waste projects, and the latest initiative moves directly towards EPR.
GRID-Arendal and DOKO Foundation are working with national and local stakeholders to develop a national EPR framework for plastic waste management in Nepal, including guidance on implementation and methodologies for calculating EPR fees for plastic packaging.
The project also includes a Deposit Return Scheme pilot in the Khumbu Pasang Lhamu Rural Municipality in the Everest region. The aim is to test how collection and refund mechanisms could operate in a geographically difficult area heavily affected by tourism-related waste. The project is being implemented under the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions framework, and is funded by the NREF.
Nepal is also separately developing EPR approaches for other waste streams. A 2025 project, for example, developed a proposed framework for EPR for e-waste and electric cooking devices.
This illustrates an important pattern seen in many countries: EPR often develops progressively, waste stream by waste stream, rather than through one comprehensive system introduced at once.
India: a central digital EPR system
India provides one of the most interesting examples because its EPR system for plastic packaging combines national requirements with a central digital platform.
India introduced its Plastic Waste Management Rules in 2016. The system became considerably more structured in 2022, when detailed EPR Guidelines for Plastic Packaging were introduced.
The rules apply to producers, importers and brand owners and cover several categories of plastic packaging, including rigid plastics, flexible packaging, multilayered packaging, and compostable and biodegradable plastics. The system also establishes obligations relating to recycling, reuse, recycled content and end-of-life management. (UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform)
Crucially, obligated companies register through a centralized online portal developed by India’s Central Pollution Control Board. The national rules explicitly require producers, importers, brand owners and plastic-waste processors to use this portal.
This architecture offers clear advantages:
- one national registration point;
- a common database of obligated companies and waste processors;
- digital reporting;
- easier verification of registered recyclers;
- EPR certificate generation and trading; and
- a stronger basis for cross-checking compliance information.
At the same time, centralization does not guarantee effective implementation. India continues to face challenges related to verification of recycling claims, accuracy of reporting, enforcement and integration of the large informal waste sector. Administrative centralization and environmental enforcement are separate questions. A country can simplify how companies register and report while still maintaining strong regulatory oversight.
Different systems, one underlying principle
EPR has evolved considerably since its emergence around 1990. Successful EPR systems, however, require more than simply introducing a fee. They depend on clear legal responsibility, transparent financing, reliable data, functioning collection and recycling systems and credible enforcement.
The economic reality should also remain clear: EPR does not make waste-management costs disappear, nor does it necessarily mean that producers absorb those costs themselves. Consumers frequently bear much of the economic cost through product prices. We will discuss this in our next article. So stay tuned!
The more useful question is therefore whether EPR creates the right incentives, directs the money towards effective waste management and does so without creating unnecessary administrative complexity.
India’s experience raises an especially interesting question for Europe: If a country with more than a billion people can operate a central digital EPR portal, should a small European company selling across the Single Market still need to register separately in multiple national systems?
Read next:
One Market, Many Registers: EU Packaging EPR — Is There a Fix?