Preparing for 2026 EPR Compliance
Key Takeaways from North America and Strategies for 2026 Compliance
11 February 2026
Insights
Table of Contents
Share this article
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs are continuing their rapid expansion across the U.S. and globally. Producers are doing their best to understand, interpret, and manage compliance obligations, and many are quickly realizing the significant financial weight of these regulations.
EPR fees have brought packaging design and material choices to the forefront. At the same time, in Europe, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) seeks to harmonize reporting and recyclability requirements across the E.U. – mirroring some of the complexity U.S. producers are now facing (these parallels are further explored in our UK perspective on EPR and PPWR).
When considered strategically, however, EPR requirements can be influential in driving decisions about materials, supply chains, budgets, and long-term product considerations. Companies are now factoring EPR fees into cost models and packaging innovation decisions, bringing sustainability and finance teams closer than ever before.
Lessons learned from 2025
The first major U.S. EPR reporting cycle of 2025 brought plenty of learning moments for producers, including:
1. Early preparation is key
Many producers underestimated the time required to collect, validate, and categorize packaging data. Those who began early and had a clear handle on where to find sales records, bill of materials (BOMs), and packaging specifications were able to meet reporting deadlines with confidence.
- Key takeaway: Gathering the necessary data for EPR is a multi-stakeholder effort; engaging data owners early on what is needed and why it is important ensures they understand their role in providing accurate, complete packaging data.
2. Finance teams will need clear forecasting
EPR fees are becoming a measurable line item in annual budgets. Collaboration between sustainability, legal teams, and finance was critical in 2025 – and will be even more important in 2026 as new fee structures emerge and more state programs come online.
- Key Takeaway: Ensuring internal teams understand how EPR affects budgets, planning cycles, and the resources required for long‑term packaging strategy will continue to improve financial readiness.
3. Packaging data accuracy matters
Many producers struggled with inaccurate material weights, missing supplier data, or inconsistent categorization. Without an expert to review, these issues could lead to over or under reporting. The consequences are twofold: regulatory risk and distorted internal fee forecasting.
- Key Takeaway: Third-party expert reviews can not only support teams in verify data accuracy but can also help minimize non-compliance risk and fees.
4. Each state has different rules
California requires producers to report plastic packaging weight separately from total weight, while Colorado’s program covers only consumer-facing packaging. These differences mean reporting systems must be adaptable – and producers must understand the intent behind each state’s rule.
- Key Takeaway: The party responsible for reporting should understand these state-by-state differences to avoid reporting unnecessary categories or including exempted items.
5. Complex portfolios require tailored approaches
Multinational or multi-brand companies faced additional challenges consolidating packaging data across varying product types, materials, and labeling requirements.
- Key Takeaway: Managing complexity requires a structured, customized data model developed by packaging experts.
6. Sector-specific nuances matter
Food service and healthcare packaging face distinct challenges – such as contamination issues or regulatory restrictions – that influence both EPR responsibilities and feasible packaging changes. Beverage containers also face differences as some states exclude containers covered under their bottle bills.
- Key Takeaway: Sector‑specific packaging challenges require tailored EPR approaches rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all model.
7. Broader implications are emerging
U.S. EPR laws have awakened producers to related obligations, such as recycled content mandates, Canada’s Federal Plastics Registry (CFPR), and other international EPR schemes which have been established for many years. Producers are also becoming aware of interconnected packaging laws such as California’s SB 343 (Truth in Labeling for Recyclable Materials Act), which defines recyclability and SB 54 (California’s EPR law) which establishes recycling targets.
- Key Takeaway: Producers now recognize EPR as part of a larger compliance and sustainability landscape, and are working to close potential compliance gaps.
Preparing for the 2026 reporting cycle
As 2026 begins, producers have an opportunity to build on these lessons, strengthen their EPR readiness, and even utilize EPR as a strategic lever to advance sustainable packaging as a sales driver and market differentiator.
1. Monitor evolving timelines
Although California’s rulemaking process has experienced delays, and the updated 2023 baseline report – originally expected in February 2026 – is likely to be postponed, the implementation timeline is still in effect. Companies should monitor regulatory updates closely and plan accordingly.
2. Create an EPR strategy and action plan
Develop both short- and long-term plans that align your reporting priorities with fee forecasting, eco-design plans for packaging and California source reduction requirements. A strong EPR strategy enables compliance today while positioning your business to benefit from future fee reductions or eco-modulation incentives. For sustainability teams, EPR is a strong lever to unlock innovation.
3. Validate your data and identify gaps early
Before the next submission window opens, have an experienced team member review your packaging data thoroughly to flag gaps and potential inaccuracies. Work with suppliers to close data gaps now.
4. Use expert-determined proxies – not guesses
When precise packaging data isn’t available, use verified proxies developed by EPR and packaging experts who understand how material types and formats are categorized under each state’s rules. This ensures confidence and consistency across reports.
2026 EPR Timeline
Even though reporting is not due until May 31st the clock is ticking with deadlines each month this year.
- Q1: continue to track California SB54. Once finalized there will be a 30-day window to resubmit 2023 baseline data based on any changes to the regulation
- Date for Individual Source Reduction plan for California is still to be decided.
Key deadlines include:
| Month | Deadline |
|---|---|
| January | Oregon 2026 program fee invoice issued. Colorado 2026 first program fee invoice issued. |
| February | Register for Washington EPR by February 15, 2026 to be included in CAA’s registration with Washington’s department of Ecology. |
| March | 2023 Updated Baseline for California.* |
| April | Producers to submit California Source Reduction Plan to CAA.* |
| May | 2025 supply reporting due for Oregon, Colorado, and California. Simplified reporting at the material class level for Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. Submit eco-modulation reports where you are eligible to receive bonuses. |
| June | CAA expected to submit a full source reduction plan to California. |
| July | Oregon 2026 program fee invoice to be issued. Colorado 2026 program fee invoice to be issued. Q3: Maine simplified reporting due.* |
| August | Q3: Maine simplified reporting due.* California Early Fees invoice to be issued. |
| September | Q3: Maine simplified reporting due.* |
| October | Q4: Maine start-up fees due, based on selection of Stewardship Organization (SO).* CAA expected to release fee rates for reporting completed in 2026. |
| November | Q4: Maine start-up fees due, based on selection of Stewardship Organization (SO).* |
| December | Q4: Maine start-up fees due, based on selection of Stewardship Organization (SO).* |
How Anthesis can help
Anyone can handle data – but only packaging experts understand what that data means. An expert knows when a categorization doesn’t make sense, when a proxy under (or over) values material weight, or when a reporting assumption risks overpayment. The Anthesis team of packaging and material experts, powered by our software solution, ensures accurate, defensible reporting without the risk of under- or over-reporting.
As EPR programs expand, it’s vital to understand the regulation-specific nuances across jurisdictions. Accurate categorization and expert validation can be the difference between robust reporting and non-compliance concerns. Although audits have not yet occurred, they are coming. Having a defensible, documented calculation methodology will be essential.
EPR Risk Assessment
Take our free risk assessment to find out if your business is subject to global EPR legislation.
We are the world’s leading purpose driven, digitally enabled, science-based activator. And always welcome inquiries and partnerships to drive positive change together.
