Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is shifting from long-term planning into daily business operations in 2026, requiring brands to integrate data systems, manage complex state-by-state regulations, and rethink packaging strategies immediately. California's evolving rules are creating material classification confusion and compliance challenges that demand urgent internal coordination across sustainability, legal, and finance teams.
- EPR is now a core business issue influencing data systems, material choices, and packaging strategy rather than just voluntary commitments.
- Data integration is critical—many companies still pull packaging information from disconnected systems, creating compliance gaps.
- California's rules are reshaping material viability—compostable packaging faces outdated federal standards while molded fiber and polycoated paper are being reclassified based on collection and end-market data.
- State-by-state patchwork creates operational inefficiency—brands operating across multiple states face different reporting rules, fee structures, and material definitions.
- Brands must act now—waiting for regulations to stabilize is impractical; companies need integrated systems and cross-functional coordination to manage rising compliance demands.
For brands navigating today’s packaging landscape, EPR is quickly becoming a core business issue, influencing everything from data systems and material choices to long-term packaging strategy. It was a topic that came up repeatedly during the recent SPC Impact 2026 conference in Nashville.
From left, Amanda Humes, Conagra Brands, and Brie Seferian, Mondelēz InternationalPackaging World
Amanda Humes, director of packaging stewardship at Conagra Brands, explained how EPR is pushing companies to look beyond design claims and focus on how packaging actually performs once it enters the waste stream. “It’s no longer just about voluntary commitments or isolated improvements,” she said. “Increasingly it’s about demonstrating accountability across the entire value chain.”
That shift is creating pressure for better internal systems. Panelists repeatedly emphasized that data collection, forecasting, and compliance infrastructure need immediate attention. Brie Seferian, senior manager of EPR North America at Mondelēz International, said many companies are still trying to assemble packaging information from disconnected systems. “We need better data,” she said.
California remains the clearest example of how complicated EPR implementation can become. For compostable packaging, AB 1201 and related legislation continue to create uncertainty by tying compostability claims to outdated federal National Organic Program rules. These rules currently do not recognize packaging materials as allowable agricultural inputs, effectively blocking compostable packaging from being labeled as such in California.
Rhodes Yepson, BPIPackaging World
Rhodes Yepsen, executive director at the Biodegradable Products Institute, described the state’s framework as having “the right ingredients, but the wrong recipe,” warning that misaligned laws could effectively eliminate compostables as a viable pathway despite broader sustainability goals.
Molded fiber packaging is facing similar confusion. Under California’s SB 343 EPR legislation, products long viewed as recyclable are being reclassified because recyclability now depends heavily on collection, sortation, and end-market data rather than technical recyclability alone. Tom Hendrickson, industry affairs manager for the International Molded Fiber Association noted that many molded fiber products are now in regulatory limbo, even when consumers widely perceive them as sustainable options.
From left, Scott Byrne of Sonoco and Teo Medellin of Procter & Gamble.Packaging World
Polycoated paper is also under review, with California’s covered material categories forcing companies to prove where specific formats fit. Scott Byrne, VP, global sustainability and industry affairs at Sonoco, said some polycoated materials may qualify under current rules while others may not, even when functional differences are minimal.
A growing concern throughout the conference was how difficult it will be for brands to manage a state-by-state patchwork long term. While panelists did not suggest that federal legislation is imminent, Humes pointed to the need for greater alignment in how programs are structured. A more harmonized national framework, she suggested, would help companies build systems that are more efficient and scalable, rather than repeatedly adapting to different reporting rules, fee structures, and material definitions across states. Without that kind of consistency, compliance risks becoming far more resource-intensive, particularly for large brands operating across multiple markets.
For producers, navigating this environment requires more than compliance reporting alone. Companies are being pushed to strengthen internal data systems, coordinate more closely across sustainability, legal, finance, and packaging teams, and stay engaged in policy discussions as requirements continue to evolve. Waiting for regulations to stabilize is not a practical option. As Humes noted, design changes made solely to lower fees or meet shifting requirements can create unintended tradeoffs elsewhere in the system.
With more states moving from policy development into implementation, EPR is shifting from long-term planning into day-to-day business operations. “I think we’re all going to have to get all of our systems integrated better,” Seferian said, as brands work to avoid being caught unprepared by rising compliance, reporting, and packaging demands. PW
