EPR for packaging: who pays the bill for sustainability?

Instead of placing that burden on society, the government or the environment, it’s the producer that should be responsible for waste management: collection, sorting, processing and recycling. An important step towards a circular economy.

But let’s also be honest: in practice, this responsibility usually gets shifted to the producing companies, not only to the extent of the substantive responsibility , but also financially. And those extra costs? These are often forced to be passed on to you, the end user.

The core of EPR is clear: make sure that producers themselves think about the environmental consequences of their packaging, even before they put it on the market. For example, they want to:

encourage more sustainable materials;
make recycling easier and more efficient;
prevent waste costs from ending up with society or the environment.

It is a system that works through financial incentives. Those who produce and use packaging that is difficult to recycle, pay more. Those who invest in reusable or recyclable materials pay less. In theory, this creates a positive pressure on innovation and eco-design. But the reality, as is so often the case, is a bit more complex.

Although the responsibility lies with the producer, it is the end user who ultimately pays the bill.

This is what happens in real life?

The producer or importer of packaging material joins an organisation such as Fost Plus (household packaging) or Valipac (industrial packaging).
Based on the type and volume of packaging material, he makes an annual declaration.
These figures lead to a recycling contribution per kilo, a cost that is directly linked to the use of materials.
In most cases, these extra costs are passed on down the chain, all the way to the end user.

In theory, the ‘extra responsibility’ remains with the producer, but in practice it is felt in the consumer’s wallet. And this through more expensive products, higher packaging costs or rising transport prices.

At Marisan, we have been consciously working on circular thinking and ecological packaging design for many years. As a producer and partner, we are affiliated with Fost Plus and Valipac and make an active contribution to the EPR objectives. We do this through, among other things:

develop mono-material shipping packaging;
offer compostable and recyclable carrier bags;
using recycled raw materials, such as PCR plastics;
and advise customers on their choice of packaging: what is sustainable, legally compliant and economically feasible?

But we also notice: EPR requires extra efforts. Think of more administration, more reporting, and higher material costs. And yes, customers also feel that impact – directly or indirectly – in their own cost structure.

Let us be clear: the EPR principle is very valuable. We need to move towards an economy in which waste is not the end point, but the beginning of something new. Circularity is the norm. Involving the producer more in that process is a logical step.

But it should not just become a deferred cost recovery in which producers fulfil paper obligations, and the consumer unconsciously makes up the difference, which then erodes the purpose of the EPR. Working on real circular solutions with the support of and in collaboration with the government is the only way forward.