Sustainable Packaging Moves to Legislative Guidelines

By 2028, 75% of organizations with stated sustainable packaging targets will sunset voluntary goals in favor of adopting legislative guidelines, according to Gartner, Inc. Chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) must prepare internal profit and loss (P&L) owners for increased costs associated with new packaging legislation, which could rise to millions of dollars.

“By the end of this year, Gartner predicts that 90% of public sustainable packaging commitments will remain unmet, as organizations continue to rely on plastics and single-use packaging,” said John Blake, senior director analyst in  Gartner's supply chain practice.. “With packaging rules rapidly evolving, CSCOs must shift their focus to meeting extended producer responsibility (EPR) requirements, which will demand new investments in data management, package design and compliance resources.”  

As voluntary efforts fall short, several US states have passed packaging EPR legislation, and packaging EPR is emerging as a global policy trend that shifts the financial responsibility for packaging waste and recycling to producers and manufacturers.

EPR laws require organizations to register with a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), an entity that manages collection, recycling, and reporting obligations for producers. Companies must submit detailed data on packaging materials, quantities, and recyclability, and comply with varying rules across jurisdictions.

“Many organizations are currently unprepared for these new requirements, lacking the data management tools and resources needed for compliance. Longer term, legislation can lead to significant costs for PRO fees and fines, alternative materials, and supply chain adjustments,” said Blake.

Legislation is now the primary force shaping product and packaging design strategies, replacing the previous focus on cost and consumer appeal. Companies must align packaging with new sustainability, labeling, and reuse requirements, often within the limits of current recycling infrastructure.

Key impacts include:

• Adapting supply chains and logistics for reusable packaging systems, such as collection and redistribution
• Accelerating packaging redesign cycles, which can take two years or more
• Incorporating legislative requirements into new product development and capital planning

Delaying adaptation may result in higher long-term costs, fees, or even loss of market access for noncompliance.

CSCOs in impacted industries should:

1. Educate all functional teams—including marketing, R&D, manufacturing, risk, compliance, and IT—on the implications and risks of packaging EPR legislation.
2. Engage the entire supply chain ecosystem (suppliers, procurement, transportation, manufacturing) to address the complexities of sourcing sustainable materials and implementing return networks for reusable packaging, including systems for collection and redistribution.
3. Incorporate packaging legislation as a central consideration in corporate packaging strategies, as it will directly impact design, material sourcing, and manufacturing decisions going forward.

Noncompliance with packaging legislation poses significant risks to market position, including fines, penalties, and potential loss of market access. Organizations that proactively address legislative requirements can mitigate these risks and gain a competitive advantage by:

• Designing packaging for circularity
• Aligning material choices to recycling infrastructure in target markets
• Ensuring package dimensions, labeling, and color additives do not render packaging nonrecyclable
• Confirming suppliers can provide adequate quantities of sustainable packaging materials

“Organizations that fail to prioritize packaging legislation in their design and sourcing strategies risk losing market access and eroding margins as EPR fees rise. Proactive compliance protects market position and also creates opportunities for differentiation in an increasingly regulated environment,” said Blake.