Christopher Hailstone, a seasoned expert in the intricacies of utility and waste management, recently shared his perspectives on the tectonic shifts occurring in the packaging sector. As states across the U.S. grapple with the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, producers and local authorities are finding themselves in a labyrinth of new regulations and data requirements. During our discussion, we explored how the industry is navigating the fog of regulatory uncertainty, the friction caused by disparate state standards, and the critical realization that EPR is fundamentally a data management challenge. Hailstone also highlighted the strategic importance of directing new funding toward underdeveloped infrastructure, particularly for difficult-to-recycle materials like flexible films.
As we see Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks taking shape across the United States, how are local governments managing the uncertainty that comes with being at the forefront of these legislative shifts?
Local governments are currently standing at a crossroads where the excitement for sustainable change meets the cold reality of administrative complexity. At the Packaging Recycling Summit held from June 15-17, the sentiment among local leaders was one of cautious apprehension because they are being asked to navigate a system that is still very much in its infancy. I have observed that for every answer a local agency finds, two more questions seem to crop up regarding the actual operability and legal defensibility of these new programs. In Illinois, for instance, there is a deliberate strategy to remain in a learning phase, carefully watching the legal challenges that have already cropped up as a major risk in Oregon and California. The goal is to ensure that by the time the 2027 legislative session rolls around, they have a policy that is not just a noble environmental goal but a functional, implementable reality for the entire value chain. With a critical needs assessment due on December 1, there is a palpable sense of urgency to build a foundation that can withstand the pressures of both the industry and the legal system.
The concept of “compliance tension” was a major theme at the recent summit; could you elaborate on why this friction exists between different states and how it impacts the brands trying to follow the rules?
The primary source of tension lies in the fact that brands do not design their packaging for individual states; they design for a national or even international market. When you have states moving at different speeds and creating their own unique definitions for material categorization, fees, and incentives, it creates a logistical nightmare for the companies responsible for paying into these systems. We are seeing a real struggle with “compliance tension” as brands try to reconcile the rules in one state with the conflicting requirements of another, which can lead to inefficient design choices and higher costs. However, there is a glimmer of hope in the emergence of harmonization efforts, particularly with the Circular Action Alliance acting as a Producer Responsibility Organization across six different EPR states. By providing a draft standard for responsible end markets, they are helping to align some of the rules being written, which is a necessary step to prevent the whole system from collapsing under the weight of its own bureaucracy. It is encouraging to see states starting to copy one another’s successes, but until we have true alignment on those core definitions and fees, that tension will remain a significant hurdle for the industry.
Many organizations are beginning to view EPR not just as a policy hurdle but as a significant logistical data problem. How should companies shift their internal processes to handle these new reporting requirements?
There is a profound “aha” moment happening in the industry where leaders are realizing that EPR is, at its heart, a massive packaging data problem rather than just a legal or environmental one. Take a company like Just Born Quality Confections, which manages hundreds of individual SKUs; they found that every time they thought they understood a state’s goalposts, the rules would shift again. To combat this, they had to move away from treating EPR as a policy issue and instead initiated a comprehensive audit of their entire packaging portfolio to build a single, reliable source of truth. This involves granular work, like taking the total volume of products shipped and multiplying it by the precise weight per case to ensure that the data being submitted is accurate to the gram. If your initial inputs are even slightly off, the entire model fails, leading to incorrect fee payments and potential non-compliance. Having these robust data systems in place made the May 31 baseline reporting deadline for those six initial states far less stressful, proving that the best advice for any brand is to stop waiting for the perfect policy and simply start building their data models now.
With the influx of capital from EPR fees, there is a lot of debate about where that money should be prioritized. Why is there such a strong push for this funding to be directed toward flexible film recycling infrastructure?
The conversation around where these fees flow is vital because we have to ensure the money is actually improving the system rather than just being absorbed by administrative costs. Experts from General Mills and Procter & Gamble have pointed out that flexible film is one of the most underserved areas in our current recycling landscape, largely because the infrastructure to process it simply does not exist at scale today. In states like California, the pressure is especially intense because if producers cannot meet the mandatory recycling rates for these films, they could face massive fines or even outright material bans. Historically, film recycling hasn’t been a profitable business, especially when it comes to curbside collection, so this “injection of money” from EPR is seen as a lifeline to finally make these systems viable. The emotional and professional hope among sustainable packaging engineers is that these investments will eventually allow us to tell consumers with total confidence that their flexible packaging is actually being recycled. We are trying to move from a system of “wish-cycling” to a high-functioning circular economy where the most difficult materials are finally given a clear path to being reused.
What is your forecast for the future of state-level EPR cooperation?
I anticipate that the next three to five years will be characterized by a “great alignment,” where the initial chaos of disparate state laws gives way to a more unified national framework led by the private sector and PROs like the Circular Action Alliance. As more states like Illinois prepare for their own legislative sessions in 2027, they will naturally gravitate toward the standards that have already been battle-tested in California and Oregon to avoid the same legal and logistical pitfalls. We will likely see a shift where data reporting becomes standardized across the country, much like nutritional labeling or tax reporting, making it a routine part of doing business rather than a constant source of crisis. The tension we feel today is the growing pains of a new system, but the sheer volume of data being collected and the capital being raised will eventually force an efficiency that the industry hasn’t seen before. Ultimately, the success of these programs will be measured not by how many laws are passed, but by how much the actual recycling rates for complex materials like flexible films improve as a direct result of these targeted investments.
