In the world of packaging policy, two big acronyms are stealing the spotlight: PPT (Plastic Packaging Tax) and EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility).
They’ve both arrived at the party to shake up the way packaging is produced, used, and disposed of but they’ve shown up with very different personalities and a slightly awkward working relationship.
Different Jobs, Same Goal
At a glance, they seem aligned; both aim to reduce waste, boost recycling, and move the UK towards a circular economy. But scratch the surface and it’s clear: they operate independently, with different levers of influence.
PPT is a tax hammer: if your plastic packaging contains less than 30% recycled content, you’ll be charged £223.69 per tonne (as of 2025). It’s all about pushing businesses to use more recycled polymers, especially rPET, by hitting them in the wallet if they don’t.
EPR, on the other hand, is a cost-shifting framework. It holds producers financially responsible for the entire lifecycle of packaging: from design to disposal. Under EPR, businesses must fund collection, sorting, and recycling systems based on how easy (or hard) their packaging is to recycle.
At a glance, they seem aligned; both aim to reduce waste, boost recycling, and move the UK towards a circular economy. But scratch the surface and it’s clear: they operate independently, with different levers of influence.
PPT is a tax hammer: if your plastic packaging contains less than 30% recycled content, you’ll be charged £223.69 per tonne (as of 2025). It’s all about pushing businesses to use more recycled polymers, especially rPET, by hitting them in the wallet if they don’t.
EPR, on the other hand, is a cost-shifting framework. It holds producers financially responsible for the entire lifecycle of packaging: from design to disposal. Under EPR, businesses must fund collection, sorting, and recycling systems based on how easy (or hard) their packaging is to recycle.
Two Systems, One Bill
Here’s the kicker: you can end up paying both.
If your packaging:
- Contains less than 30% recycled content → you pay the PPT
- Is hard to recycle, or uses unfriendly materials → you pay higher EPR fees
Modulation - Where the Magic Might Happen
The UK's new EPR regime introduces modulated fees where packaging that’s easier to recycle (and made from better materials) pays less. While PPT is currently flat-rate, EPR modulation could soon reward those who use recycled materials like rPET, creating a financial sweet spot where circular design meets lower costs.
In theory, this could mean:
- Design with recyclability in mind
- Use recycled content to avoid PPT
- Get a fee discount under EPR
A Bit of a Communication Breakdown
Right now, PPT and EPR don’t talk to each other. They require different data submissions, reporting systems, and compliance hoops. There’s no offsetting, no bundling, and certainly no shared application portal. In other words: they’re flatmates, not soulmates.
But as reporting requirements tighten and data becomes more central to compliance, expect smart companies to start joining the dots, integrating packaging design, procurement, compliance, and finance teams to handle both schemes in tandem.
Right now, PPT and EPR don’t talk to each other. They require different data submissions, reporting systems, and compliance hoops. There’s no offsetting, no bundling, and certainly no shared application portal. In other words: they’re flatmates, not soulmates.
But as reporting requirements tighten and data becomes more central to compliance, expect smart companies to start joining the dots, integrating packaging design, procurement, compliance, and finance teams to handle both schemes in tandem.
Conclusion: A Promising But Clumsy Couple
PPT and EPR may not be a love story yet—but together, they form a powerful duo. One penalises virgin plastic; the other rewards responsible design.
PPT and EPR may not be a love story yet—but together, they form a powerful duo. One penalises virgin plastic; the other rewards responsible design.
No comments:
Post a Comment