Canopy’s Position on Extended Producer Responsibility - Packaging

Topline: Canopy welcomes the advancement of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations, which require brands to be financially responsible for the post-consumer waste of their packaging. When designed to incentivize more responsible use of resources for packaging, EPR laws can be an important lever for advancing circular economy goals and minimizing environmental impacts. However, many EPR regulations, as currently written, focus on waste management rather than waste reduction or sourcing impacts, may overlook the negative climate and biodiversity impacts associated with the use of virgin paper, and schemes may misclassify alternative non-wood fibres as non-recyclable.  

EPR schemes should be designed to incentivize not just recyclability, but also responsible sourcing, recycled content, source reduction of single-use packaging, innovation into alternative delivery systems like reuse and refill, and the use of alternative fibre packaging made from feedstocks such as agri-waste, which offer potential climate and biodiversity benefits compared to wood fibre.  

Why We Need Extended Producer Responsibility Regulations for Packaging

• Improving recycling systems means generating more recycled fibre. Recycled content is one of the most effective ways to reduce pressure on the world’s forests, and improving collection and infrastructure will mean there is more recycled fibre available on the market. 

• More responsibility for packaging means more responsible use of packaging, and therefore more innovation. As brands have to pay for the amount of packaging on the market, design innovations like lightweighting or reuse make better business sense. Eco-modulation schemes that reward more sustainable packaging can also make the business case for packaging with less negative impacts. 

• More data means better decision-making. Recent evidence suggests that the reported recycling rate of paper in some regions is overstated, and that much of single-use packaging in the consumer sector is less recyclable than consumers may believe.  Recyclability classifications based on actual, local data can drive more responsible use and ensure that non-recyclable materials are not over-produced. 

• Incentivizing materials with net environmental benefits. Eco-modulation schemes can — and should — incentivize the use of packaging materials or solutions with environmental benefits. Alternative fibre paper packaging, for example, carries on average, less GHG emissions and less biodiversity impacts than conventional paper, can avoid emissions and pollution associated with burning of agri-waste, and can displace some use of virgin wood fibre from high carbon and conservation value forests. In the EU, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation treats non-wood fibres as ‘innovative,’  exempting alternative fibre packaging from meeting stringent recyclability thresholds. 

Why EPR laws may not address all negative impacts associated with single-use packaging: 

• EPR schemes may encourage a shift towards paper, but the world’s forests cannot withstand increased pressure. In accelerating a shift toward more recyclable materials, there is a risk that brands may increase their use of virgin paper-based materials. It is imperative to ensure that these materials aren’t coming at the expense of the world’s Ancient and Endangered Forests. Demand for paper packaging accounts for approximately one-tenth of the total logging pressure on the world’s forests. Voluntary sourcing protocols, such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, are a critical minimum precaution, but they are insufficient to meet existing, let alone increased, demand for forest fibre.

• Most schemes don’t have recycled content targets for paper, and some don’t have recycled content targets at all, or those targets only apply to plastic packaging. Recycled fibre is one of the most straightforward ways to reduce pressure on the world’s forests, but to date, no EPR schemes have recycled content targets for paper. Increasing the amount of recycled fibre used in packaging can reduce demand for virgin fibre. 

• Not all EPR schemes include paper packaging. Some EPR laws — such as those in Indonesia and the Philippines — currently only apply to plastic packaging. This overlooks significant risks, where increased paper demand could lead to increased deforestation and forest degradation.  
  
• Some schemes have characterized alternative fibres as “recycling-challenged,” which may not account for their technical recyclability or net environmental benefits. At least one EPR scheme classifies alternative non-wood fibres as “recycling challenged.”  Although EPR material classifications are based on region-specific data, Canopy maintains that packaging made from non-wood fibres does not pose widespread recycling challenges and can be collected and processed in the conventional paper stream. There is a range of alternative fibre packaging available that carries certification of rigorous recyclability testing. Jurisdictions should seek a range of data when considering alternative fibres, and not penalize this solution unnecessarily. 

The bottom line

• EPR laws are one part of a circular solution. 
• EPR for packaging primarily focuses on end-of-life concerns, and the emphasis on recyclability may confuse the waste hierarchy, obscuring the long-term need to prioritize source reduction and the responsible use of raw materials.
• EPR schemes can and should be designed to ensure that as little single-use packaging as possible is placed on the market, that recycled content is prioritized (not just recyclability), and that paper packaging does not drive deforestation or forest degradation. 
• Where responsible sourcing concerns are not directly written into EPR schemes, brands should continue to advance responsible packaging principles through voluntary actions. 

Background: Canopy actively advocates for the responsible use of packaging and the reduction of the negative impacts associated with paper packaging. Over 480 brand partners affiliated with Canopy’s Pack4Good initiative have all committed to improving the environmental footprint of their paper packaging by eliminating the use of Ancient and Endangered Forests, maximizing recycled content, reducing packaging through smart design, and investing in the scale-up of lower-carbon alternative fibres.