Last week, at the Environment Services and Solutions (ESS) Expo, I presented to businesses on how they will be affected as the UK’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) regime moves into its next phase.
Central to this is the Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM), which determines how packaging is assessed for recyclability and, in turn, influences the fees producers pay.
Given that new data found almost two-thirds of flexible plastic packaging received the lowest recyclability rating in 2025, there’s a growing concern for businesses.
As a lawyer advising on EPR, I see uncertainty about what RAM means in practice:
- Which businesses are affected
- How assessments translate into costs
- Who ultimately bears those costs through the supply chain
- The consequences of failing to comply
What is the RAM, and why does it matter?
RAM is the methodology used to assess the recyclability of packaging under EPR. The first version was published in December 2024, with RAM v1.1 applying to packaging supplied during 2025 and 2026. PackUK has since published RAM 2027, applying to packaging supplied during 2027.
Under RAM, packaging is assessed and given a green, amber or red rating according to its recyclability. These assessments have a direct commercial significance because they are used to determine how EPR waste disposal fees are modulated.
For the 2026/27 year, amber-rated packaging attracts the base fee, while red-rated packaging attracts a 20% premium.
Base waste disposal fees vary by material and format but can run to hundreds of pounds per tonne, meaning even a modest premium becomes significant at scale.
Revenue raised through the red premium funds, discounts for green-rated packaging.
The intention is that producers placing harder-to-recycle packaging on the market should bear a greater share of its waste-management costs, creating a financial incentive to improve recyclability.
And the financial differential is set to grow. Under PackUK’s current modulation policy, the red multiplier is scheduled to increase from 1.2 times the amber fee in 2026/27 to 1.6 times in 2027/28 and twice the amber fee in 2028/29.
For food manufacturers, this is particularly significant. Flexible plastic packaging – including many of the pouches, films and laminates widely used across the sector – presents particular recyclability challenges. The finding that 61.8% of flexible plastic packaging assessed under RAM received a red rating in 2025 provides an indication of the potential exposure.
Consider, for example, a food manufacturer supplying ready meals in multi-layer laminate trays sealed with printed film. Each component may individually use recyclable polymers, but the combination of layers, adhesives and inks can result in the finished packaging being assessed as red under RAM. If that manufacturer places several thousand tonnes of such packaging on the market each year, the difference between an amber and a red rating, even at the current 1.2 times multiplier, represents a material additional cost, one that will grow as the multiplier increases.
However, businesses should be cautious about what can be inferred from that figure. A red rating does not necessarily mean the physical design of every package concerned is inherently unrecyclable: packaging can also receive a red assessment where the information necessary to complete the assessment is unavailable.
Who bears the cost and who is legally responsible?
Large producers (organisations with annual turnover above £2 million that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year) face packaging data reporting requirements and, where applicable, waste disposal fees.
However, identifying the legally responsible producer isn’t as simple as identifying the company physically making the packaging.
The EPR regime recognises different categories of producer, including brand owners, packer/fillers, importers, distributors and online marketplaces. The obligations applicable to online marketplaces in particular remain a developing area as the regime evolves. Which business bears responsibility therefore depends on how the packaging is supplied and the role each organisation plays.
For food businesses with complex manufacturing and supply arrangements, that makes understanding the supply chain particularly important. A manufacturer may produce or pack goods for somebody else’s brand; a brand owner may commission a third party to manufacture its products; and imported products raise their own questions about responsibility.
Businesses should therefore establish where their legal EPR obligations sit rather than assuming that responsibility rests with either the manufacturer or retailer.
Who bears the economic cost?
A business legally liable for an EPR fee may seek to absorb it, negotiate with suppliers, pass costs through to customers or reconsider its packaging altogether. Existing contracts may not have been drafted with these costs in mind, potentially creating disagreement over how they should be allocated.
This is why businesses should be reviewing relevant supply agreements now. Access to accurate packaging data, responsibility for providing that information and the contractual allocation of EPR-related costs are becoming increasingly important commercial considerations.
What happens if you get it wrong?
Businesses can face enforcement action for failures including registration and data-reporting breaches, while failure to pay waste disposal and administration fees can lead to financial penalties.
Where an individual producer’s relevant fees remain unpaid 50 days after their due date, for example, the variable monetary penalty can be calculated as the higher of 20% of the unpaid fees or 5% of the producer’s UK turnover. For larger businesses, the turnover-based calculation can significantly exceed the underlying fee itself, making timely compliance essential. Different provisions apply to group registrations.
The timing is also important. Producers began receiving invoices for EPR waste disposal fees in October 2025. The current 2026/27 period marks another significant step because disposal fees are now being modulated according to packaging’s RAM recyclability rating for the first time.
Businesses are therefore dealing with two developments simultaneously: seeing the financial consequences of assessments already made while preparing for the further changes in RAM 2027.
Next steps for businesses
Packaging design decisions that improve recyclability may reduce exposure to modulated EPR fees, while packaging that receives a red rating will become progressively more expensive under the planned modulation system.
That does not mean simply replacing flexible plastic with paper, or assuming that a mono-material solution will automatically achieve a green rating. Packaging needs to be assessed against the detailed RAM criteria, and changes should be considered alongside factors such as food safety, shelf life and the wider environmental consequences of alternative materials.
The immediate priority should therefore be understanding what packaging a business places on the market, ensuring that the data used for RAM assessments is accurate, identifying where red ratings arise and considering whether packaging can realistically be redesigned.
Businesses should also review their supplier and customer contracts to understand where both legal responsibility and the economic burden of EPR costs sit.
Conversations with brand owners, manufacturers and packaging suppliers alike reinforce that many businesses are still working through these questions, and that the cost of the new regime will not sit neatly with any single party. It will be shaped by contractual arrangements, packaging design choices and the quality of the data underpinning RAM assessments.
The businesses that engage with these issues now, rather than waiting for the next invoice or the next enforcement action, will be best placed to manage both the legal and commercial consequences as EPR continues to evolve.
About the author
Bill Cordingley is a barrister at Browne Jacobson where he advises on public law and sustainability regulation.
