A group of trade associations have been critical of the Government announcement over Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees calling the regulations “poorly designed” and failing to support the circular economy.
Businesses that import or supply packaging in the UK will be responsible for the costs of managing that packaging waste.
The criticism comes as the Government unveiled the first year of fees that manufacturers will face, based on the weight per tonne, of different packaging materials from October 2025.
The fees paid by producers will cover the costs of PackUK, the scheme administrator for EPR, and provide local authorities with additional income to cover the cost of recycling and disposal of waste packaging materials.
The majority of the new fees are lower than was previously revealed in December 2024. From 8% less for ‘other’ packaging to 39% less for Aluminium. The exception is fibre-based composite fees, which have increased by 1%.
The regulations have come under fire previously as it has been claimed that it disproportionately targets glass, with the costs hitting many manufacturers such as drinks producers, who will be forced to look into using less sustainable materials.
In a joint statement, the British Beer and Pub Association, British Glass Manufacturers’ Confederation, Scotch Whisky Association, WineGB, Wine and Spirit Trade Association, and UK Hospitality said: “With businesses facing numerous economic challenges, today’s announcement goes against the UK Government’s plans for boosting growth at home. The disproportionately high fees for glass demonstrate that the UK Government has not listened to the concerns of businesses – laid out clearly in last week’s letter to the Secretary of State – regarding this poorly designed scheme."
They added: “The current EPR design does not meaningfully support the delivery of a circular economy, and adds a significant additional cost to businesses who use glass. There is a risk that without action from the UK Government to reduce these fees and move to meaningfully support businesses rather than restrict them, the scheme will result in producers switching to less sustainable materials and that many producers will be charged twice – further restricting investment into the economy.”
They have urged the Government to reconsider the proposed fees, and to work with businesses to implement a scheme that truly supports the delivery of a circular economy.
Glass manufacturer, Encirc, called on the Government to hit the pause button on the scheme before British glass manufacturers are unfairly hit with these disproportionate costs.
“Sadly the government’s pricing structure has not taken into account that glass is far more sustainable than plastic and weighs considerably more,” a spokesman for Encirc added.
“Ministers must continue dialogue with the British glass industry before implementing EPR. It is in the best interest of consumers, businesses and glass factories for this scheme to be put on ice.”
Meanwhile, The Food and Drink Federation welcomed the clarity for manufacturers on the costs they will be facing for the first year of EPR.
“At £1.4bn a year, EPR is an expensive programme. So, it’s critical that government demonstrates to industry how the scheme will deliver value for money, improve the UK’s flatlining recycling rates, and build the circular economy that packaging producers expect," a spokesman said.
“The UK government beginning to set out measures to ensure that local councils only spend EPR fees on packaging recycling is a welcome step in the right direction. We look forward to seeing further detail on how this will be enforced and applied across both Scotland and Wales.”