How Extended Producer Responsibility Is Reshaping Packaging Decisions in the UK
- Hayley Simon
- Mar 26
- 4 min read

Packaging has always played multiple roles for brands. It protects products, reinforces brand identity, and shapes the customer experience.
But today, packaging is no longer just a design or operational decision. It is a direct driver of cost, compliance, and long term profitability.
At Staci Create, we are seeing brands shift their approach rapidly. The conversation is moving from “what looks good” to “what performs commercially, operationally, and compliantly.”
More businesses are now starting with a packaging audit to understand their exposure before costs increase.
The introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is fundamentally changing how businesses approach packaging. For brands selling physical products, the materials used today will increasingly influence the costs they face tomorrow.
What Is Extended Producer Responsibility?
Extended Producer Responsibility is a policy designed to shift the cost of managing packaging waste from taxpayers to the businesses that place packaging on the market.
Under the UK’s EPR scheme, producers are responsible for funding the collection, recycling, and disposal of their packaging once it becomes waste. The goal is to encourage companies to design packaging that is easier to recycle and to reduce overall packaging waste.
Historically, much of the cost of managing household packaging waste fell on local authorities. EPR changes that dynamic by making producers financially accountable for the packaging they introduce into the supply chain.
In simple terms, the packaging you choose today will directly impact what you pay tomorrow.
Which Businesses Are Affected?
The regulations apply to organisations that:
Have annual turnover of £1 million or more, and
Handle more than 25 tonnes of packaging per year
For most brands selling physical products, particularly in sectors like retail, e-commerce, beauty, food and beverage, and consumer goods, that threshold is easily met.
For many brands, this is not a future issue. It is already impacting reporting requirements, decision making, and forward planning.
Businesses meeting these criteria must now collect and report detailed data about their packaging materials, including the type and weight of packaging they place on the UK market.
The Big Change Coming in 2026
While the EPR framework is already being introduced, the most significant shift arrives in 2026 to 2027.
From this point, packaging fees will be modulated based on recyclability.
Green: Widely recyclable materials
Amber: recyclable but with some limitations
Red: difficult or impossible to recycle
The financial impact is straightforward:
Red rated packaging will incur higher fees
Amber rated packaging will pay the base fee
Green rated packaging will receive reduced fees
This is not just a sustainability incentive. It is a direct cost lever. The difference between red and green packaging at scale can materially impact margin.
Rising Costs for Hard to Recycle Materials
The UK government has designed the system to increase the cost of difficult to recycle packaging over time.
Red rated materials will face progressively higher multipliers compared to the base fee.
For brands with large product ranges, this can quickly translate into significant cost exposure across the portfolio. Packaging is no longer a fixed cost. It is becoming a variable cost driven by design decisions.
In other words, packaging decisions made today will influence regulatory costs for years to come.
Why Packaging Design Is Now a Strategic Decision
Traditionally, packaging decisions have focused on:
Brand presentation
Product protection
Material cost
Logistics efficiency
EPR elevates packaging into a commercial strategy decision.
This means packaging design now sits at the intersection of:
sustainability
regulatory compliance
operational cost management
customer experience
Brands that act early can reduce future costs, improve sustainability credentials, and maintain control over customer experience. Those that delay risk rising costs and reactive redesigns.
How Staci Create Supports Brands
This is where Staci Create works as a strategic partner, not just a packaging supplier.
Through Staci Create, we support brands with:
Packaging design and development that balances brand impact with recyclability requirements
Material selection to reduce environmental impact and future fee exposure
Supplier coordination to ensure solutions are viable and scalable
Operational alignment so packaging performs efficiently within fulfilment environments
We connect packaging decisions with real operational and commercial outcomes, not just design theory.
What Should Brands Do Next?
With modulated fees approaching, early action creates a clear advantage.
1. Start with a packaging audit - A structured audit identifies where your packaging may fall into red categories and where quick wins exist. At Staci Create, we offer a free packaging audit that highlights cost exposure, compliance gaps, and optimisation opportunities.
2. Simplify packaging formats - Multi material packaging is often harder to recycle and more costly under EPR.
3. Review materials and components - Small changes can significantly improve recyclability and reduce costs.
4. Bring packaging into strategic planning - Packaging now impacts margin, compliance, and scalability.
5. Work with the right partners who have expertise across design, sourcing, and logistics is critical to making the right decisions early.
Packaging That Works Commercially and Operationally
Packaging still needs to:
Protect the product
Deliver a strong customer experience
Reflect brand identity
The most effective packaging strategies are those that bring together creative, operational, and regulatory thinking from the outset.
Get Ahead of EPR
If you are reviewing your packaging strategy or want to understand your exposure:
Request your free packaging audit: https://www.stacicreate.com/packaging/packaging-audit
Or speak to our team to explore your options: hayley.simon@stacicreate.com



Comments