Durability: Can Extended Producer Responsibility Withstand Legal, Political, And Market Pressure?
What happens when circular economy policy meets real-world resistance?
In this episode of Change Cycle, Christine Yeager puts extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems through a stress test—examining how they hold up under lawsuits, market volatility, political shifts, and public scrutiny. From California’s refined packaging regulations to Oregon’s ongoing legal challenge, and new EPR bills emerging in Illinois, New York, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, she unpacks the fast-moving U.S. policy landscape.
But durability isn’t just about surviving headlines. Drawing lessons from Germany, France, Belgium, and British Columbia, Christine explores what makes EPR systems financially stable, legally defensible, operationally sound, and adaptable over time. She argues that lasting circular economy progress depends not only on strong funding mechanisms and governance—but on leaders who can navigate controversy and stay committed when the pressure rises.
As U.S. EPR policy matures, the real question isn’t whether it will face resistance. It’s whether it’s built to endure it.
---
Watch the episode here
Listen to the podcast here
Durability: Can Extended Producer Responsibility Withstand Legal, Political, And Market Pressure?
Welcome back to the show. We are going to talk about durability. Can our circular economy survive stress? Last episode, we were in the weeds of textile waste. We talked a lot about trade-offs, global secondhand markets, mechanical and chemical recycling, and the very real discomfort of building systems that do not yet exist.
The Wave Of State-Level Policy & "Stress Tests"
Next episode, we are going to zoom into the pet industry. We are also going to talk about the emotional side of this work and dealing with climate change, and some of the sometimes sad stories of animals that are impacted by humans on this earth. Sustainability leaders have to show up anyway and still make progress.
Defining The "Who" & "How": EPR Vocabulary
I want to talk about durability because right now, California is refining regulations. Oregon is facing a lawsuit. Illinois and New York are still considering EPR. New Hampshire and Wisconsin are testing the waters with EPR. There is a policy happening. Everywhere beyond EPR, there are organic bans, and there are post-consumer recycled content mandates. There is a lot of policy out there related to waste. All of these elements are stress testing this system. Before we get too deep, we are going to start with a vocabulary check, per usual.
Extended producer responsibility, EPR, surely by now you know what this is, but it is a legislation and policy approach where producers or brands that make and sell the packaging are financially and operationally responsible for the end-of-life management of their packaging or products. A producer responsibility organization is an entity approved by a state to implement EPR on behalf of producers.
Landfill diversion is a policy or target aimed at reducing the amount of waste that is sent to landfills through recycling. Responsible end markets are verified downstream markets that ensure collected materials are actually recycled and not dumped or exported irresponsibly. Recyclability claims are things that you can put on your package or on a shelf that say that your product is recyclable, or it is the definition of material, as to whether or not it is recyclable.
That definition of recyclable differs across states. Nonetheless, it generally means that a large majority of the population has access to recycling that product or package, so you can claim it as recyclable. Now I want to start a new segment when it makes sense for my solo episodes. Again, when you have a podcast, you can do whatever you want.
The definition of recyclable differs across states and nations, including within the United States. Nonetheless, it generally means that a large majority of the population has access to recycling that product or package, allowing it to be claimed as recyclable.
California’s Regulatory Refinement
Here we are. There are a lot of new things happening. I am going to have a Change Cycle news segment. California, for SB 54 or the EPR legislation in California for paper and packaging, has released a new round of regulations that you can find on their website. These draft regulations were mentioned when they pulled the latest draft off, and said that they were going to edit it.
They talked about how they wanted to provide some clarity around what would be excluded under FDA or USDA regulations. Therefore, what would be covered, and this would mostly affect agricultural products or ingredients. They have now released an edited version of the regulations that addresses this issue around what is excluded under the FDA and USDA regulations, as expected.
They have had a public comment period that is shortened, only fifteen days, that began on January 29th and ended on February 13th. This also means that some of the deadlines are changing because they were anchored on when the regulations would be approved. There still remains a deadline that, within 30 days of the regulations' effective date, producers must be registered.
CAA has asked entities to register before that, but that is what is written in the statute. Companies have to be registered with a PRO within 30 days of the regulations taking effect, which should happen shortly after the comment period is closed. There remains a deadline that, before July 1st, the producer responsibility organization will need to report, or any producer that is choosing to report on behalf of themselves will need to submit a report covering the 2023 calendar year to set a source reduction baseline by July 1st of 2026.
The Oregon Lawsuit: A "Procedural Pause"
CAA, in most cases, will be reporting on behalf of their producers, and therefore it is likely that the deadline to CAA will be before July 1st in some amount of period of time where they can take your report and validate it, and then share it with CalRecycle. Another news update is that Oregon has a lawsuit, which we mentioned last year. There has been some traction on this lawsuit.
The National Association of Wholesalers and Distributors, this is an association that has brought forth this lawsuit on behalf of its membership to the Department of Environmental Quality. DEQ in Oregon focused on the Recycling Modernization Act. They had various claims in this lawsuit itself. Not all of them are moving forward, but there is an injunction for the membership of this organization that they no longer have to report and pay any fees as of this time until the lawsuit is heard in court in July, I think July 13th-ish.
This is a procedural pause, and it only affects the membership of the National Association of Wholesalers and Distributors. If you are not a member of that organization, then you continue to have to comply with the legislation and the dates. Their legal argument is centered around a couple of things. One is interstate commerce. This EPR legislation and the requirements are making business being done across state lines difficult, too difficult. There are a lot more words, of course, as I see this, that is the anchor on that legal argument.
There is another legal argument tied to due process around the fact that companies are forced to work with this producer responsibility organization without a lot of opportunity to negotiate for what they need or without a lot of clarity around who is actually obligated, at least within the case of wholesalers and distributors. There were a couple of other arguments related to the constitutionality of the EPR legislation that have been thrown out.
Only these two main points will be brought forth into the court in the summer in July. From a strategic standpoint, if you are not in the National Association of Wholesalers, this will not affect you right now. Nothing will change. The broader structural shift towards producer-funded systems is not reversing. Europe did not reverse it, and Canada did not reverse it. This is legal friction, and we will see what happens. This is like a stress test on whether this policy is durable. In other news, legislative sessions are heating up.
A couple of states that I think are on the radar, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California, Oregon, and Washington, all their legislative sessions began in January on various days. Connecticut officially began in February, and it will last between 4 or 5 6 months, depending on the state. We are going to see sort of what happens and what comes through. Another couple of states to keep on the radar are New Hampshire, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Durability means a system that can withstand political turnover, legal challenges, commodity crashes, and public scrutiny.
New Hampshire, similarly, all of the legislative sessions began at the beginning of this year. New Hampshire already has a bill that is tied to EPR happening that is already introduced and that was introduced in January. In Wisconsin, both the assembly and the state have an EPR-type bill introduced. You are seeing more legislation come out beyond EPR.
There are landfill bans. There is other legislation around recyclability claims. Also, from another podcast I heard, you continue to see this even just in what has passed. Legislation has passed in the past few years. There is also a lot more talk about post-consumer recycled content mandates.
New Hampshire & Wisconsin: The New Frontiers
Right, wrong, or indifferent, the idea behind this is that it forces the responsible end market or the use of the material. We will see what else comes out this year. Quick early read on the New Hampshire and Wisconsin bills. The New Hampshire bill proposes packaging reduction targets. Producers must reduce packaging weight 5% in two years, 20% in five years, and 50% in 10 years. It is early in the session. It is an ambitious bill. We will see what happens in New Hampshire.
They've brought forth an EPR-type bill multiple times, but it is an aggressive bill, so probably be an uphill battle. In Wisconsin, there are bills in the Senate and Assembly, but the legislature is Republican controlled, and there is no strong statewide packaging EPR history. I do not know that the momentum is strong there. Nonetheless, it has been introduced.
Quick summary on the news. Most sessions are active now and will wrap up by late spring. Budget deadlines and crossover windows are clustering in February and March. That means if your industry wants to influence packaging, EPR, or any other waste-related policy, the next 4 to 6 weeks are super critical. Just a reiteration that policy is broader than EPR. There are organic bans, there is landfill diversion, there is recycling claimed type pack legislation, and there is post-consumer recycled content.
There is a lot of policy that you want to keep tabs on in the waste diversion space. In light of all of this news, let us shift gears and talk about the durability of EPR. When I say durable, I mean a system that can withstand political turnover, legal challenges, commodity price crashes, industry pushback, public scrutiny, and economic downturns.
The 4 Dimensions Of Durability
If it collapses the first time prices drop or leadership changes, it was never really structural. It was just a temporary change. We are going to talk about four-ish dimensions of durability. Let us see what we can learn from some of the places that have handled this type of stress and remain an EPR legislation.
Financial durability means it is stable in the funding space and it survives market swings. The single biggest differentiator between fragile and durable systems will be whether the funding mechanism is maintained. When recycling markets collapse, like they did after China's National Sword policy, who is going absorb the shock? In durable EPR systems, producers continue to fund the system, and municipalities are not crippled. Germany is an example. Germany implemented packaging EPR in the early 1990s through a dual system.
It has survived multiple regulatory revisions, adjusted fee structures over decades, maintained high recycling rates, and shifted from weight-based fees to a more eco-modulated model. When markets fluctuate, the funding mechanism does not disappear. It is adjusting. That is a strong example of financial durability.
I will just note that you will see in all of these themes that being flexible is a way to achieve durability. Another factor would be legal durability, the ability to survive legal and constitutional scrutiny. If a system can survive a court challenge, then it, in theory, should last. If it cannot, then that means that the system has too many holes. An example would be France and its Citéo. France has one of the most mature EPR frameworks, spanning packaging, textiles, furniture, electronics, and more.
Their packaging PRO, Citeo, has operated for decades, survived changes in government, absorbed expanded scope, like reuse targets, and integrated eco-modulation at scale. The legal framework is not the same as it was in the beginning. It has been amended. It is expanded and tightened. It was never dismantled. That durability through evolution is what you want to see in this space. It is not perfection. It is evolution.
There is operational durability. Infrastructure that actually exists and improves over time. You cannot regulate recycling into existence. The infrastructure has to be built, and the system and the responsible end markets have to have a market value. Belgium is an example. They consistently report some of the highest packaging recycling rates in Europe because they have standardized collection systems nationally.
They have invested directly in sorting capacity. They have harmonized consumer messaging. They have maintained clear material lists. It is not just a funding mechanism. It is a coordinated operational system. When definitions change, they're adapting their infrastructure. That is an example of operational durability.
Finally, emotional and political durability, public acceptance, and institutional resilience. This is the part that is emotional and, therefore, uncomfortable sometimes to talk about. Durable systems are socially normalized. They are not debated year over year as an existential threat. Canada and British Columbia have an example with RecycleBC. British Columbia's full producer funded residential packaging system launched in 2014.
Durability is not just about systems; it’s also about people. Durable policy requires leaders who can withstand backlash.
It did what EPR does. It shifted financial responsibilities away from municipalities. It standardized province-wide collection and has continued across political administrations. It has also expanded reporting transparency. When commodity markets are shifting, when political leadership is changing, the program is continuing.
What do these global examples tell us? Durable systems share common traits, clear, legislated funding mechanisms, independent producer responsibility organization governance, and transparent reporting. Most of all, they're adaptable. They are changing over time. They are changing their infrastructure over time. They are changing the way that the law is written over time.
They're changing how they might be funded over time. It is adaptable. When we think about how California is refining recyclability criteria, Oregon is facing legal challenges, other states are considering new EPR legislation, and there is all this other type of waste-related legislation out there, this isn't to signal that circularity is necessarily failing in the United States. It is to signal that it is being stress tested, and it is early in the journey, evolving, and it is part of the construction.
Beyond packaging, we've also talked about textiles. I would say that even more so, textiles are earlier in this change curve. France has textile EPR, and mechanical and chemical recycling pathways are still being debated and scaled. Infrastructure is for sure lagging behind policy. This needs to be a global coordinated effort.
Durable systems — and durable people — are built under pressure.
The funding mechanisms are still being finalized, and the end markets are volatile. The system is still in a fragile state, but that does not mean it cannot get to a more durable state. It just means that it is earlier in the maturity curve than packaging. I will also bring in, and this is why I said four-ish, another aspect of durability that I want to talk about, which is that durability is not just about systems. It is also about the people.
Durable policy requires leaders who can withstand backlash. The joke is that you start out liking the PRO, but everybody eventually hates the PRO. It is just their job. CFO conversations are tough, and you cannot fold at the first sign of resistance when you're talking to the financially minded leaders in your company. Sustainability professionals need to be able to operate in this discomfort and in this messy change curve state because we're constantly in that state. If we weren't, then we would not need to have sustainability leaders anymore. Everything would be fixed.
Human Durability: The Role Of The Professional
Durability is about the people as well, and your emotional durability, and your ability to stay with the cause even when you feel like it is too much chaos, it is too much backlash, it is too much disruption due to climate change. It is all part of the stress test towards a more durable human and a more durable system.
The circular economy and sustainability professionals are not fragile because we're dealing with controversial topics. It becomes fragile if you cannot survive the controversy. Durable systems and durable people are built under pressure. I encourage you to embrace the stress test and power through to the durable.
Important Links