Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the USA

An Overview of Policies, Scope, and Impact

Introduction

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach under which producers are given significant responsibility—financial and/or physical—for the treatment or disposal of post-consumer products. The aim of EPR is to incentivize manufacturers to design environmentally friendly products by making them accountable for the entire product life cycle, especially end-of-life management. In the United States, EPR regulations are enacted mainly at the state level and target various product categories, reflecting the nation’s decentralized approach to environmental policy.

Historical Context

EPR first gained traction globally in the 1990s, inspired by policies in Europe and Canada. In the US, EPR initiatives began with product stewardship programs for items like automotive batteries and paint, gradually expanding as environmental awareness and waste management challenges grew. Unlike the European Union, where EPR is often mandated through national directives, the US approach is fragmented, with individual states and sometimes local governments adopting EPR laws to address region-specific needs and priorities.

Scope of EPR Regulations in the USA

EPR regulations in the US cover a wide array of products, including but not limited to:

• Electronic waste (e-waste)
• Pesticide containers
• Packaging materials
• Paint
• Batteries (both automotive and rechargeable)
• Mercury-containing products (e.g., thermostats, lamps)
• Pharmaceuticals
• Carpets and mattresses

Each product category is often governed by its own set of state-level rules, and the requirements for producers can vary significantly between states.

Key Features of EPR Laws in the United States

EPR legislation in the US generally shares several core principles, though specifics differ by jurisdiction and product:

• Producer Responsibility: Producers (manufacturers, importers, or brand owners) are responsible for financing, organizing, and reporting on the collection and recycling or safe disposal of their products.
• Product Stewardship Organizations (PSOs): Producers often fulfill obligations collectively by forming or joining PSOs, which manage take-back and recycling programs.
• Convenience Standards: Laws typically require that collection networks be convenient and accessible to consumers statewide.
• Performance Standards: Some states set recycling or collection targets for producers, either as a percentage of sales or weight collected.
• Reporting and Transparency: Producers or PSOs must submit regular reports to state agencies, detailing quantities collected, recycled, and sometimes product design changes or consumer education efforts.
• Eco-Design Incentives: While less common in the US, some programs encourage or require design for recyclability, toxicity reduction, or use of recycled materials.

Major Product Categories and State Regulations

Electronics (E-Waste)

Electronics are one of the most prominent categories for EPR in the United States. As of 2025, twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have passed e-waste EPR laws. These laws require manufacturers of computers, televisions, and other electronics to finance and manage collection and recycling programs.

Notably, California’s program is based on an advanced recycling fee paid by consumers, while most other states, such as New York and Illinois, place the responsibility directly on manufacturers. E-waste EPR laws address the growing environmental challenge posed by toxic materials in electronics and the rapid pace of technological obsolescence.

Paint

The Paint Care program, first launched in Oregon in 2010, has since expanded to include several other states, such as California, Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington. Paint manufacturers fund and operate take-back programs, creating convenient drop-off sites for unused paint. This initiative helps reduce environmental hazards from improper paint disposal and encourages recycling of leftover paint into new products.

Batteries

Both single-use and rechargeable batteries are included in EPR regulations in various states. For instance, California requires stewardship of rechargeable batteries and imposes collection and recycling requirements. Vermont has a comprehensive single-use battery stewardship law, the first of its kind in the US, requiring battery producers to finance and manage recycling programs.

Packaging and Printed Paper

While EPR for packaging has been more common in Canada and Europe, US states are beginning to adopt similar measures. Maine became the first state to pass an EPR law for packaging in 2021, closely followed by Oregon, Colorado, and California. These laws require packaging producers to finance recycling programs and sometimes set eco-design standards for packaging sold in the state, aiming to reduce landfill waste and increase recycling rates.

Other Products

Additional EPR programs exist for products like mercury thermostats, pharmaceuticals, mattresses, and carpets. For example, California and Connecticut have mattress recycling laws, and several states require producers of mercury thermostats to collect and manage these products responsibly.

Comparison to Other Jurisdictions

The US approach to EPR is less centralized and more varied than in the European Union, where national-level mandates set uniform rules. In the US, the patchwork system can create compliance challenges for companies operating nationally, but it also allows for experimentation and adaptation to local needs.

Benefits of EPR Regulations

• Environmental Protection: By diverting hazardous and bulky products from landfills and incinerators, EPR regulations reduce pollution and resource consumption.
• Waste Reduction and Recycling: EPR helps increase recycling rates for complex and difficult-to-recycle products.
• Producer Innovation: The responsibility to manage end-of-life products encourages manufacturers to design products that are easier to reuse, repair, or recycle.
• Cost Shifting: EPR shifts the financial burden of waste management from taxpayers and municipalities to the producers and consumers of products.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its benefits, EPR faces several challenges in the US context:

• Lack of Federal Coordination: The absence of nationwide EPR policy means that requirements differ by state, leading to complexity for producers and uneven environmental outcomes.
• Enforcement and Oversight: Some programs lack strong enforcement mechanisms, resulting in inconsistent participation or outcomes.
• Scope and Effectiveness: Many EPR laws cover only specific products, leaving much of the waste stream unaddressed.
• Program Costs: Critics sometimes argue that compliance costs are passed on to consumers, though proponents counter that environmental benefits outweigh these costs.

Recent Developments and Future Outlook

The trend toward EPR is growing, especially for packaging and single-use plastics. Several states are considering or developing EPR bills, and there is increasing interest in harmonizing programs across states to minimize compliance burdens. The federal government, while not yet enacting national EPR law, is supporting research, funding, and best practices for product stewardship.

With mounting pressure to address plastic pollution and circular economy goals, it is expected that EPR in the United States will continue to expand, both in scope and geographic reach.