Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging might favour plastics over paper, suggests study
Aquapak's analysis has identified potential complications in the way the UK legislation defines recyclability.
Aquapak says, ‘Plastic packaging often [attracts] a lower Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fee than paper-fibre composites – a contradictory outcome for a policy that’s meant to drive a shift away from plastic.’
Designed to place financial and operational responsibility for packaging disposal onto producers, brand owners, or importers, the EPR regulations took effect in October 2025.
The scheme requires reporting on any packaging materials used, ‘broken down by type and by tonnage placed on the market each year’. The material categories involved determine the fee to be paid per tonne of packaging.
From 2027, a red, amber, green system, defined by a Recyclability Assessment Methodology, will also apply, modulating fees based on recyclability (i.e., higher recyclability leading to lower fees).
While paper-based alternatives are often considered more sustainable, biodegradable and easier to recycle, ‘the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) currently states that any paper-based packaging containing more than 15% plastic is considered non-recyclable and therefore cannot be widely collected by councils’, Aquapak reports.
This definition is also used by the On-Pack Recycling Label scheme, so products above that threshold may not be classed as ‘widely recycled’ and display that logo.
But Aquapak says ‘DEFRA’s definition is [composition-] rather than performance-based’. They add that this might assume products with over 15% plastic content can’t be recycled even though they could be, in some cases.
It compares this to the European approach, ‘where limits are higher (often 20–30% non-fibre content) and recyclability is [instead] assessed through testing’.
Under current EPR definitions, ‘paper’ packaging must contain at least 95% fibre by weight. If a product contains less than this, it is classed as a ‘fibre composite’.
Aquapak’s analysis shows that ‘plastic packaging often attracts a lower EPR fee than fibre composites’.
This means paper-based packaging that includes a small amount of plastic – in ‘thin barrier coatings or functional layers for grease resistance, [resealing], or moisture protection’ – is often more expensive to put on the market.
Aquapak claims, ‘These don’t necessarily make the pack non-recyclable. In fact, many can be fully repulped and recovered.’
It adds that the costs, infrastructure, energy input and recovery steps for fibre composites compared to standard paper are ‘almost identical’, except for a ‘negligible’ increase in secondary waste from the mill pulping process.
By these standards, Aquapak finds that many materials that perform similarly to paper in the recycling process are ‘unfairly penalised’ and some packaging that was previously classed as ‘widely recycled’ could lose that status.
‘Materials that have already proven they can be recycled in practice could suddenly be deemed non-recyclable simply because of how new definitions are written.’
