The first unified reporting deadline for packaging EPR has passed. What should producers do next?

The first unified reporting deadline for U.S. packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs has just passed, but that does not mean the work is over. Compliance experts say that in many ways, this is just the beginning, and opportunities for improvement abound.

Michael Wasserman, senior consultant at Eunomia, said the focus should now shift to implementation and the practical application of data. Companies should prioritize upstream factors, such as redesigning packaging to improve recyclability, reducing weight, or moving toward reuse and refill systems. With organized data, "there is really a lot that can be done."

Over the past five years, seven U.S. states have passed packaging EPR laws: California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. Among them, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) has been selected as the producer responsibility organization in six states.

Given such a high level of activity andcalls for harmonization, CAA announced a unified baseline data reporting deadline this year: May 31.

But having the same deadline does not mean producers can submit the same report in every state. Each program is slightly different; some states require more detailed breakdowns of materials by component, while some programs cover entirely different types of packaging.

Michael Washburn, founder of Washburn Consulting, noted that while the same reporting deadline brings predictability, the reports themselves vary. Additionally, although the versions required by Minnesota and Maryland are considered "simplified" because their programs launch further out, these "cannot be confused with simple."

"If you do it correctly, they still have significant complexity," Washburn added.

Compliance levels vary widely

Cheryl Baldwin, vice president of sustainability consulting and marketing at Pure Strategies, said obligated companies' readiness ahead of the joint deadline varied greatly.

"Some companies have been paying attention from the start, have been collecting information, are fully prepared, and are handling it calmly; but at the other extreme, we are indeed talking to some businesses that are hearing about this for the first time," she said a month before the deadline.

Washburn estimated in early April that no more than half of producers across the states had participated and registered. At a March advisory committee meeting, CAA shared that California had 2,719 registered producers, but more than 3,300 were still missing at that time.

Washburn speculated that 50% of producers were completely unaware; another 10% might be waiting for final regulations, 15% clearly planned not to participate, and the remaining 25% were figuring out how to respond.

As of early April, he was still onboarding some clients who had not yet submitted baseline data reports due in Oregon on March 31, 2025, and several clients contacted him only after receivingnotices of violation from CAA and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. In fact, among Washburn's clients, only a few were fully on track to complete by May 31.

Some companies also hope to reduce fees directly through eco-modulation. But Anna Kendall, senior manager of climate change and sustainability services at EY, said "the current focus is compliance."

Baldwin said she sees new clients arriving with feelings of "being overwhelmed and confused." While no single factor explains why some companies never engaged with the law, Baldwin believes fines issued by Oregon have helped raise awareness.

"Oregon has publicly stated it is sending these notices and explaining the process, which is helpful. It makes companies take it seriously," she said. "Oregon is organized, manages its program as promised, and we see violation letters being sent and followed up on, which is raising awareness."

Oregon's violation notices and public list of non-compliant producers help show that "this legislation really has teeth, and EPR must have that to work," Kendall said. "This framework is important to companies."

Kendall said there is still a "serious free-rider problem," but that is typical in the first few years of any EPR program.

She added that while last year's staggered reporting deadlines helped companies ease into the process, the unified date ultimately more closely mirrors financial reporting and will eventually help companies achieve maximum efficiency.

Missed the report? Don't panic.

If a company missed the deadline, the most important thing is to start taking action.

Baldwin said the first step is to find out what information is required for reporting in each state, then collect data to the best of your ability.

"The overall idea is: get the information and start organizing it," she said. "Then it's: do what you can, at least for the first time, to start responding to each state."

Baldwin added that the first round of responses will feel the most overwhelming, and she encourages companies to keep going.

"Although it may be confusing and overwhelming at first, it will quickly become easier," she said. "What matters is progress, not perfection."

Washburn said any company still on the sidelines is "putting itself at high risk," both legally and financially.

"You're late, but it's still early. There is a degree of leniency," Washburn said. "If you sit back and do nothing, the risk is highest. Register. Make yourself visible."

He said that as long as you start the process, you are "reducing risk." Even companies that receive violation notices usually have enough time to piece together a compliance report and avoid serious fines.

"Keep moving forward, knowing it's not impossible," Washburn said, adding that "there is a path forward, and it can be done in a less painful way, but you have to take the first step."

He suggested calling peer companies to learn what they are doing, hiring compliance consultants, communicating with industry associations, and for global companies, checking whether European colleagues can help.

Kendall said a key step to success is building a strong cross-functional internal team; "the calculation may be simple, but compliance is not simple."

Building long-term systems

With the reporting deadline passed, companies may want to breathe a sigh of relief, but Wasserman said now is the time to review the reporting process and identify what needs adjustment.

Perhaps producers have sales data, but need to dig deeper into weight and composition. He suggested that now is a good time to start conversations with suppliers.

This period is ideal for "identifying where your challenges are, finding where you can improve next time, and advancing that process," he said.

Wasserman said Eunomia will look at how its initial needs assessment work and modeling from three years ago matches the producer data received, and will make adjustments as needed.

"We are used to doing a lot of analysis with limited data, and now there is much more data, both at the product level and the system level," he said. "This opens many doors for thinking about policy and legal analysis and understanding impacts."

Washburn said companies should ensure the work they have done lays a solid foundation for the future.

"Get your mind out of the data swamp and focus on governance, because this is a permanent issue," he said. "Your mission is not to generate a report, but to build a compliance program."

That means ensuring decision-makers are involved—those who can make choices about source reduction, material use, and long-term goals.

"Is chasing data a big part of it? Of course," he said. "But you can't do it unless you understand how it fits into the overall plan."

The first step is understanding the scope: in which states is the company an obligated producer, and which items are involved? Washburn said from there, data can be collected, including internal data as well as data from external suppliers and manufacturers.

"Before you start entering large amounts of data into spreadsheets, you have to make many decisions," he said. "I don't think that has been explained clearly to people."

Baldwin emphasized that this is not a one-person job. Not only does this type of compliance require a significant amount of time, but it can only be done correctly by involving multiple roles within the company, such as legal, finance, and operations.

She observed that companies go through several stages of evolution. The first stage is the initial work of completing the first report, where companies need to figure out who needs to be involved and how.

Then comes the adjustment stage, Baldwin said, where companies focus on how to efficiently complete data collection and reporting.

Next is the maintenance stage, where companies stabilize and feel confident about long-term reporting.

These three stages lay the foundation for the final stage: companies realizing the significant opportunities from fee optimization, both at the regulatory level and the overall business level.

"This is an opportunity to better understand important parts of their business, and then they can take action in multiple ways to derive more value from it," she said. "There is value, but regulatory pressure is what they feel right now."

Kendall said EY focuses on helping clients create traceable, repeatable methodologies, and then gradually build the potential benefits of EPR. She added that CAA has also proactively reached out to clients to clarify certain content in reports, which surprised some clients.

"As we begin to take a more globally coordinated approach to EPR and improve reporting efficiency, it can also make the total cost of EPR visible," she said, which could create a better business case for packaging design changes.

Wasserman noted that fee eco-modulation is about to take effect. He said that now that companies have some reporting experience, they should start considering these additional factors.

"There is still a lot of work to be done on source reduction goals and ensuring all materials are on collection lists or minimum recyclability lists," he said. "The work does not stop on May 31."