Industry Voices: Extended Producer Responsibility in the US

As of mid-2026, seven US states (California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington) have enacted Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) packaging legislation, each with distinct definitions, mandates and compliance timelines. And at least seven more states have introduced their own legislation or launched formal feasibility studies. The result is a landscape best described as complex. 

Happi asked experts at leading associations representing the personal care, beauty and household cleaning categories about EPR and its impact on their members and the industry at large:

• Molly Blessing, vice president of sustainability and product stewardship at the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA);

• Brennan Georgianni, associate vice president, government affairs and strategy at the American Cleaning Institute (ACI);

• Shannon Hess, strategic initiatives lead at the Independent Beauty Association (IBA); and

• Tom Myers, president and CEO, Personal Care Products Council (PCPC).

---

HAPPI: What are the most pressing challenges created by the state-by-state EPR patchwork that the industry is in right now?

Georgianni of ACI: The most immediate challenge facing the cleaning products industry is the lack of consistency across state EPR frameworks. Companies are navigating a growing number of laws that differ in key areas such as definitions “covered materials,” reporting requirements, and compliance timelines. This fragmentation creates significant operational complexity and uncertainty, particularly for companies with national distribution.

In practice, that means companies must build multiple compliance systems rather than one harmonized approach. For an industry like ours with complex supply chains, multi-material packaging and a mix of business-to-consumer and business-to-business sales, this is especially burdensome. 

Meanwhile, other states without packaging EPR programs are considering programs of their own that can further diverge from established EPR models, which further complicates implementation and reduces the ability to scale solutions nationally. 

Myers of PCPC: The current patchwork of state EPR laws creates significant complexity for cosmetics and personal care products companies operating nationally. The cosmetics and personal care products industry relies on being able to place one package on the US market without having to redesign and tailor a product 50 times. 

While well-intentioned, the state-level EPR laws lack harmonization and have created a patchwork of regulations that impose an unnecessary burden on interstate commerce, raising costs and harming markets nationwide.

Differences between state programs have the potential to impose significant compliance costs on businesses operating across state lines. These costs include, but are not limited to, EPR fees, the cost of human resources dedicated to data processing, and packaging redesign expenses. A fragmented
system ultimately risks slowing progress toward our shared sustainability goals.

Blessing of HCPA: Fundamentally, business and consumer confusion—confusion about what is and is not recyclable and, more broadly, confusion about what changes companies should make to improve packaging sustainability. The same packaging types and formats are on the market nationwide, but each EPR state categorizes this packaging differently and incentivizes different changes. For companies that sell nationwide, this creates uncertainty about how to design a compliant product for each state and what circularity paths they should take. For example, refill-at-home is recognized as a reuse/refill pathway in California, but not Colorado. On the other hand, Colorado has broad post-consumer recycled (PCR) content goals for all material types, but California only rewards use of PCR content for plastic. And then you have Oregon, which only recognizes use of life-cycle assessments. Plus, the same type of packaging could be assigned a different category in each state due to nuances of how each state views components like coating on paperboard.

Hess of IBA: The state-by-state EPR landscape presents both complexity and urgency for the beauty industry. With seven US states having enacted packaging EPR laws, companies are navigating differences in definitions, timelines, reporting requirements and program structures across jurisdictions.

For independent beauty brands and small businesses across the value chain, the challenge is especially acute. EPR increasingly relies on detailed SKU and component-level packaging data, often across primary, secondary and tertiary packaging. That information may sit across internal teams, packaging suppliers, contract manufacturers and global supply chain partners. 

These challenges are amplified by the global nature of beauty packaging supply chains. Many components are sourced or manufactured in regions where EPR frameworks are not yet as developed as those emerging in the US, requiring companies to translate global supplier data into US-specific reporting expectations. 

Recent developments in California illustrate how quickly companies are moving from awareness into execution, often with limited time to fully align systems, supplier inputs and internal accountability. Recent guidance also reinforces the breadth of covered material and the importance of detailed, verifiable packaging data, further underscoring the value of robust internal systems and supplier alignment. 

At the same time, EPR is not only reshaping compliance expectations. It is contributing to a new economic model that is already accelerating sustainable packaging innovation, including the growth of refillable formats and new materials, while enabling more data-driven, resilient supply chains across the beauty industry.

---

HAPPI: At a high level, does your industry support the direction of EPR policy in the US? Where does your organization believe current approaches are getting it wrong?

Myers of PCPC: The cosmetics and personal care products industry supports efforts to improve recycling practices and advance sustainable packaging, and we recognize EPR plays an important role in that effort. Current approaches fall short due to a lack of harmonization amongst states and stifle innovation in recycling and recovery systems and in packaging design and materials.

For EPR to succeed, a consistent framework is key. Companies face a patchwork of differing state requirements, making it hard to plan and innovate effectively. Clear and harmonized covered materials definitions, consistent reporting requirements, predictable compliance schedules and rate alignment are needed.

Georgianni of ACI: At a high level, yes, the cleaning products industry supports the goals of EPR policy. ACI and our members recognize the need to improve recycling systems and reduce packaging waste, and we believe EPR can play a meaningful role in achieving those objectives. However, the way EPR is currently being implemented in the US raises concerns.

Primarily, we are seeing program designs and mandates that are not always aligned with the realities of product performance, packaging functionality or national markets. Policies are advancing without a clear understanding of existing infrastructure capabilities. Without a strong baseline assessment of what current systems can handle, there is a risk of setting targets that are not achievable in practice.

ACI has consistently emphasized that effective EPR programs should distribute costs and accountability across all stakeholders, including governments and waste management entities, reflecting the shared responsibility needed across the recycling system. 

Hess of IBA: The beauty industry broadly supports the intent of EPR policy, particularly efforts to improve recycling systems, increase producer accountability, reduce packaging waste and advance sustainable innovation. 

Where EPR is most effective is in creating clearer economic signals. Fee structures are increasingly eco-modulated, meaning costs are adjusted based on material type, recyclability and environmental impact. In practice, formats that rely on virgin, fossil-derived materials, multi-material structures or those with limited recyclability are expected to carry higher cost exposure, while more circular, lower-impact materials may benefit from reduced fees over time. 

This creates a financial incentive to reduce material complexity, improve recyclability and transition toward lower-impact material systems. This shift is already visible in the market, with increased availability of refillable formats and other lower-material-intensity solutions. These formats also provide opportunities to reduce material use, manage cost exposure under EPR and improve overall system efficiency and circularity.  

At the same time, refill and reuse models present unique considerations for the beauty industry, where packaging, ingredient, labeling and product safety requirements intersect. As more refillable systems emerge, companies are evaluating how to maintain product hygiene, support appropriate labeling and traceability and ensure that refill formats meaningfully reduce single-use packaging over time. Questions around cleaning standards, residual ingredient contamination, cartridge-based refill systems and retention of lot code or recall information illustrate the complexity of implementing refill and reuse models at scale within cosmetics and personal care. 

This is an area where greater cross-functional collaboration and regulatory alignment will likely become increasingly important. 

While California has established explicit, outcome-based targets for recyclability and material reduction, most other state programs rely on producer responsibility organizations and fee structures to drive similar outcomes through economic incentives rather than direct company-level mandates. This creates a different pathway to change, where material choices and packaging design decisions are increasingly influenced by cost exposure rather than prescriptive requirements. 

However, current approaches are challenged by fragmentation. Differing state requirements, evolving definitions and inconsistent reporting frameworks create operational complexity across the industry, with disproportionate impact on small businesses with more limited resources. 

A more harmonized and interoperable approach would help support compliance while enabling companies to focus resources on sustainable packaging innovation, regardless of whether change is driven by explicit targets or economic incentives. 

Blessing of HCPA: HCPA’s members have helped to stand up and support multiple producer responsibility organizations (PROs), including Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the PRO for packaging EPR. We support EPR policy that embraces a shared responsibility across the packaging value chain to reach a circular system harmonized across state lines. A PRO, together with state and local governments, waste management, consumers, and producers, should all be responsible and accountable for recycling improvements while collaborating on system investments. We are concerned that current approaches do not always fully bring and keep all of these entities at the table. For example, we have seen some states try to outsource oversight and enforcement to the private sector in the form of a PRO or a stakeholder advisory board, which is concerning to us. The state should remain involved with oversight and accountability to ensure market equality among producers, including enforcement of non-registered producers, assessment of producer and PRO compliance, and review of PRO plans before finalization. We also believe there is a need for successful systems to include buy-in from consumers and explore options for incorporating more consumer participation in the recycling process, which we do not see fully addressed in current approaches. Each entity brings unique strengths to the table and leveraging these will create a more robust system. 

---

HAPPI: What are the unintended consequences of EPR that are of the greatest concern for organization and your members?

Blessing of HCPA: The cost burden is substantive and growing with new states rapidly coming on board and minimal time to budget before fees are due. This is probably the biggest impact that companies are facing right now. There is also a concern that states will not be able to meaningfully identify or enforce against non-registered producers, particularly those who are actually importers that sell products made abroad, and this will result in foreign companies/importers not paying the same high fees that companies are paying for EPR, hurting the ability of domestic companies to compete in the marketplace. At this point, I would say companies are not experiencing innovation constraints, but rather innovation paralysis: when faced with conflicting incentives across different states, it is typically easier to maintain the status quo than to take on an expensive investment that may not result in a net fee or compliance benefit.

Georgianni of ACI: Cost is certainly a primary concern but it is not the only one. EPR introduces both direct costs, such as fees and reporting systems, and indirect costs, including supply chain adjustments, packaging or product redesigns and data management. These costs ultimately risk being passed on to consumers, which is particularly concerning for cleaning products that are essential to public health and hygiene. The cost impacts are expected to grow as new programs come online.

Beyond cost, there is also a real risk of constraining innovation. Packaging in our industry is not just about delivery. It plays a critical role in product safety, performance and consumer communication. Policies that prescribe specific materials or restrict certain formats can limit the ability to innovate, including in areas like lightweighting, concentrates, refill systems and new packaging technologies.

We are also concerned about market distortions. If EPR fee structures or requirements unintentionally favor certain materials over others, companies may shift packaging choices in ways that do not necessarily produce better overall environmental outcomes.

Hess of IBA: One unintended consequence is that EPR can drive significant operational and financial pressure before systems are fully mature. Companies may collect, validate and report complex packaging data across multiple suppliers and countries, often without dedicated sustainability or compliance infrastructure. 

EPR may also influence portfolio decisions. Companies could rationalize SKUs or discontinue products where packaging complexity, reporting burden or cost exposure becomes too high. 

As programs move into implementation, compressed timelines and evolving guidance can lead to decisions based on incomplete or uncertain data. In these situations, companies often apply conservative assumptions, which can result in potential overestimation of packaging volumes or material classifications, increasing cost exposure under EPR fee structures. 

EPR is also contributing to greater cross-functional coordination across packaging, procurement, regulatory, sustainability, and finance teams. This can represent a meaningful shift for companies operating with leaner structures. 

External market dynamics are also influencing decision making. Volatility in oil prices can impact the cost of petro-based packaging materials, and when combined with EPR fee structures, this reinforces the importance of evaluating material selection and long-term sourcing strategies more holistically. 

While these pressures can be challenging, they are also accelerating positive change. They are driving investment in better data systems, stronger supplier engagement and more structured, system-level approaches to packaging design. 

Myers of PCPC: We remain committed to providing consumers with safe, effective products needed for daily health and hygiene. Many personal care products rely on specialized packaging to support safety, performance, and accessibility. Overly prescriptive and poorly designed EPR regulations could increase costs for essential hygiene and personal care products, constrain industry innovation and disrupt supply chains.

---

HAPPI: From your perspective, what would a well-functioning EPR system look like for industry? What would need to happen across government, industry, and waste management to get there?

Georgianni of ACI: A well-functioning EPR system would start with greater alignment. At a minimum, states should work toward harmonized definitions, reporting requirements, and program structures so that companies can implement a single, scalable approach.

 It should also be grounded in a shared responsibility model. Producers are willing to play an important role, but meaningful progress requires coordinated investment and accountability across the entire value chain from product design to collection, sorting, and end-market development. 

 Equally important is ensuring that policy is informed by real-world data. That includes understanding current recycling rates, infrastructure capacity and end-market demand before establishing targets. This helps ensure that goals are both ambitious and achievable.

 Finally, it must remain flexible enough to support innovation and account for the specific functional needs of different products and packaging types.

Myers of PCPC: A well-functioning EPR system should be nationally harmonized and supported by strong collaboration across government, industry, and the waste management sector. It should focus on improving recycling infrastructure and recovery rates, while incorporating industry expertise to ensure policies are both effective and practical.

Properly structured and implemented EPR laws can encourage companies to incorporate more recycled content, explore refillable formats where safe and appropriate, and collaborate with municipalities to improve recycling infrastructure. Consumer education is also key, helping people understand what can and cannot be recycled locally.

Unlike many consumer goods, cosmetics and personal care products depend on packaging designs that are integral to product safety, quality, and consumer use, underscoring the need for careful consideration in EPR frameworks.

A mascara tube, for example, is not only the application system itself but also a package designed for repeated use. Over-the-counter products such as sunscreens, toothpastes, and anti-acne treatments must be packaged in tamper-resistant formats to meet strict FDA requirements. These examples underscore the nuances of cosmetics and personal care products packaging, which may serve differing functions in comparison to food and beverage containers and therefore require unique consideration in EPR frameworks.

Blessing of HCPA: HCPA supports EPR policy that embraces a shared responsibility across the packaging value chain to reach a circular system harmonized across state lines. A well-functioning EPR system would have to clearly assign system roles to producers, the PRO, waste management, state and local governments, and consumers and give them all incentives to work toward system success. If only half the affected entities are at the table trying to make EPR work, the system is not going to succeed. 

Hess of IBA: A well-functioning EPR system would support environmental outcomes while allowing companies of all sizes, including small businesses, to operate and innovate within a global supply chain context. 

Key elements include greater harmonization across jurisdictions, clear and consistent definitions, predictable fee structures, and transparent reporting requirements. 

Equally important is collaboration. Government, Producer Responsibility Organizations, industry, suppliers, and waste management stakeholders all play a role in ensuring that systems are practical, scalable, and aligned with real packaging formats and recycling infrastructure. 

Supplier collaboration is a particularly important driver of an effective system. Access to accurate, component-level material data often depends on strong engagement with packaging suppliers and manufacturers, making supplier alignment a foundational element of both compliance and innovation. 

A strong EPR system can also support innovation. By providing consistent economic signals, EPR can encourage investment in more sustainable packaging design, materials, refill models, and data systems with greater confidence. 

Over time, well-designed systems can help reduce compliance burden by encouraging packaging solutions that are inherently more aligned with regulatory expectations. 

---

HAPPI: What is your association doing to lead on EPR?

Blessing of HCPA: HCPA regularly engages with state policymakers, including participating in landmark EPR negotiations and serving on the Oregon Recycling Material Acceptance List Technical Work Group and PROs, including CAA and the Lubricant Packaging Management Association (LPMA), to help shape program implementation, clarify requirements, and ensure that industry perspectives are reflected in decision making. HCPA is also at the table for key conversations on household hazardous waste (HHW) management, which can intersect with packaging EPR for certain types of products.

Together with the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI), HCPA launched an Aerosol Recycling Initiative in 2022 that is supported by nearly 20 companies across the aerosol value chain, with goals of improving recycling access and product labeling of how to recycle aerosols by 2030. Among other projects, the Initiative is conducting an aerosol recycling education/can residue testing project in the Portland, Oregon area, working with CAA and local governments with approval from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

HCPA has dedicated substantive resources to preparing members for compliance, including years of “EPR Readiness” virtual and in-person member education, small-group breakouts to facilitate informal member discussion of shared challenges, and biweekly meetings that help members navigate this rapidly changing landscape and address shared questions. The household and commercial products industry is committed to improving recyclability and packaging circularity more broadly, aligning with evolving consumer expectations. 

Myers of PCPC: Our industry has already taken significant proactive steps, long before laws required it. Companies have reduced unnecessary packaging, piloted take-back programs, and adopted post-consumer recycled materials. These actions reflect a broader commitment to the circular economy and to embedding sustainability across product design and delivery.

PCPC is actively engaging with policymakers and stakeholders to advocate for harmonized, thoughtful approaches to policy design and implementation. We are working across the value chain to advance sustainable packaging solutions while ensuring policies manage waste effectively, recover valuable material, support innovation, product safety and continued consumer access.

Georgianni of ACI: On the policy side, we are working with lawmakers and regulators across states and at the federal level to advocate for practical, science-based approaches and more harmonized frameworks. 

More recently, we have been focused on helping our members prepare for implementation. This includes developing EPR readiness tools customized for the cleaning products sector such as decision trees, material categorization guidance and proxy data resources and hosting webinars to help companies navigate reporting and compliance requirements. 

In addition, ACI has reactivated its Circular Packaging Work Group to align industry perspectives, share best practices, and support engagement with producer responsibility organizations implementing these programs.

Hess of IBA: IBA is equipping its members, including small businesses across brands, suppliers and manufacturers, with practical tools to navigate EPR while continuing to grow and innovate. IBA provides members guidance on compliance readiness, ongoing regulatory updates and practical interpretation of evolving EPR requirements, with an emphasis on translating policy into actionable decisions across packaging design, sourcing and supplier engagement. This includes ongoing insights shared through the IBA Supply Chain and Sustainability Resources Newsletter, which provides timely updates on emerging regulatory developments and practical implications for member decision-making. 

Over the past year, IBA’s Supply Chain & Sustainability Resources Committee has been developing guidance on EPR and related supply chain topics, reflecting direct input from member companies across the value chain. 

IBA launched public Executive Summary versions of its toolkits in March 2026, including a dedicated EPR Toolkit. The full EPR Toolkit will be available to members this summer, alongside a Supply Chain Toolkit designed to support traceability, supplier engagement and broader compliance needs. 

IBA will also introduce a Sustainability Toolkit later this year, further supporting members in aligning product design, packaging, and sourcing decisions with evolving regulatory and market expectations. 

In parallel, IBA is actively convening industry stakeholders to support collaboration and knowledge sharing. This includes bringing regulators, advisors, and industry leaders together through events such as IBA Cosmetics Convergence, where regulatory agencies including CalRecycle and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) have participated directly, as well as featuring dedicated EPR-focused panels.

IBA has presented at industry forums such as LuxePack Los Angeles and the Contract Packaging Association conference to raise awareness and support broader alignment across the value chain. IBA also participates in public comment processes to provide practical, implementation-focused input on emerging regulations, helping to represent the perspectives of small businesses across the beauty value chain. 

These efforts reflect IBA’s role as a convener, particularly in advancing collaboration around beauty and small-format packaging challenges. 

By bringing together brands, suppliers and regulators, IBA is helping to identify and accelerate practical solutions where technical constraints, regulatory expectations and innovation opportunities intersect. 

At the same time, IBA is prioritizing sustainable packaging innovation as a key opportunity for beauty. Through this work, IBA is supporting the development of packaging approaches that reduce material complexity, improve recyclability and help mitigate long-term EPR cost exposure.