EXPRA has developed a set of proposals and recommendations in hopes of ensuring that the Circular Economy Act’s Extended Producer Responsibility requirements are practical and implementable for market operators. Managing director Joachim Quoden tells us more.
Extended Producer Responsibility has become one of the European Union’s most efficient and successful environmental policy instruments. Over more than thirty years, EPR has evolved from an innovative policy concept concentrating on end-of-life treatment into the financial and organizational backbone of Europe’s way to a circular economy, so from co-organizing and financing collection, sorting and recycling systems to the engine of the packaging circle to keep as much packaging as possible in the economic loop.
Across EXPRA’s members, representing decades of operational experience in implementing EPR for packaging waste on the ground, one conclusion consistently emerges: the effectiveness of EPR depends far less on creating new legislation than on ensuring that existing rules are first and foremost fully implemented and second in a consistent, transparent and fair way.
This experience is particularly relevant as the European Commission prepares the Circular Economy Act. The discussion should not begin with the assumption that EPR requires fundamental redesign. Rather, it should recognize that the existing framework established under Articles 8 and 8a of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) has proven its value.
The challenge today lies in closing implementation gaps that have developed across Member States, which are partly not even applying EPR, not applying the minimum requirements at all, or applying only those that fit their approach; moreover, the relationship between competition law and environmental law and which goals are more important is not solved.
Experience from more than three decades of EPR implementation demonstrates that well-designed systems deliver measurable environmental results. They provide stable financing for collection and recycling, create long-term investment certainty for waste management infrastructure, strengthen cooperation between producers and municipalities, and increasingly encourage better product and packaging design. Where governance is robust and responsibilities are clearly defined among all stakeholders, EPR performs exactly the role European legislators originally intended.
The difficulties arise where implementation becomes fragmented.
Across Europe, different interpretations of the minimum requirements set in Art 8a of the WFD have resulted in significant differences in governance, transparency, oversight and accountability. This is not necessarily problematic as waste management systems naturally reflect national circumstances, local infrastructure and economic conditions. What becomes problematic is when these differences undermine equal treatment of producers, weaken public confidence or reduce the environmental effectiveness of Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs).
This is why EXPRA believes that the Circular Economy Act offers a unique opportunity to strengthen—not restructure the existing EPR framework.
Drawing upon the practical experience of our members, many of whom have existed since the very first EPR legislation in Europe, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD), EXPRA recommends reinforcing the common principles or safeguards that every EPR system should fulfil, irrespective of the governance model chosen by individual Member States.
While many key stakeholders speak about harmonization of EPR, we strongly believe that the only practical way towards harmonization is by ensuring that every EPR system’s respective implementation of the PPWR and WFD should strictly follow these principles without any exemption. So, better to agree on just a few joint rules which apply to all 27 MS than to agree on many rules with the option to opt in or opt out.
The first priority is legal clarity. EPR schemes are not ordinary commercial businesses. They finance and organize essential environmental services that support the public interest, including collection, sorting and recycling as well as consumer awareness supporting environmentally beneficial behaviour.
Recognizing that Member States may designate EPR schemes as Services of General Economic Interest would simply acknowledge the reality of the role these organizations already perform in many European countries. It would also provide greater legal certainty without altering the fundamental responsibilities of producers.
Experience also shows that credibility depends on consistent governance. Any system requiring producers, via PROs, to finance and/or organize the end-of-life management of products should be subject to the same core principles established under Article 8a of the Waste Framework Directive.
Whether a system is mandatory or voluntary, centralized or competitive should not determine the level of transparency, accountability or regulatory oversight it receives. Comparable responsibilities should be accompanied by comparable rules.
Over more than thirty years, another lesson has become increasingly evident: trust is built through transparency. PROs manage substantial financial resources on behalf of producers while contributing to public environmental objectives.
Clear governance structures, transparent ownership, traceable material flows and evidence-based reporting are therefore not administrative formalities but fundamental conditions for maintaining confidence among producers, public authorities and citizens alike.
How can we expect that inhabitants do the extra effort to sort correctly, how can we expect companies to pay their EPR contributions, when we cannot demonstrate how the money is used and what we do with the collected packaging?
Our experience also shows that fairness is essential for maintaining confidence in EPR systems. Producers placing identical packaging on the market should be treated according to identical fee structures within the same scheme.
Environmental performance—not company size or market power—should determine producer contributions. This principle also reflects the polluter-pays principle while preserving fair competition and ensuring that eco-modulation remains a credible environmental instrument rather than a commercial negotiation. It seems strange that a bigger polluter pays less than a smaller polluter for the same packaging.
Operational resilience represents another important aspect-collection and recycling systems provide essential public services that cannot simply stop if organizational or financial difficulties arise. Relevant financial guarantees, together with clear governance and regulatory oversight, help ensure continuity of service while protecting municipalities, waste operators, producers and ultimately citizens.
Thirty years of practical implementation have shown that EPR is no longer simply a financing mechanism for waste management, although it plays a key role in supporting the recycling Industry. It has become one of Europe’s most important governance instruments for delivering the circular economy.
For this reason, the Circular Economy Act should focus on strengthening the common foundations upon which all EPR systems operate. Europe does not require a single uniform model, nor identical producer fees across all Member States. National flexibility should remain. If the system is convenient and easy to understand it is not important whether the colour of the bins are the same all over Europe.
What Europe does need is a stronger common baseline that guarantees good governance, equal treatment, financial accountability and transparent implementation.
Building on more than three decades of operational experience across EXPRA’s membership, these recommendations seek to preserve what has already proven successful while addressing the practical weaknesses that experience has revealed. This is the most effective way to ensure that EPR continues to support Europe’s transition towards a competitive, resource-efficient and genuinely circular economy.
We think we can proudly say that we know what to do and how to ensure compliance with the upcoming targets in an efficient and effective way, but Member States have to allow industry to apply these best practices and experiences.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to packaging innovation in 2026
Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: what to know in 2026
Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation
No comments yet