The Path Forward for Federal EPR

The plastic waste crisis has been visible for decades. The question is no longer whether action is needed. It’s about how to act together, at scale, and in ways that deliver measurable results. For policymakers, this moment presents a choice: continue managing fragmentation, or create the conditions for coordinated, nationwide progress so we can keep plastic out of nature.

Welcome to our new series exploring solutions to the plastic waste crisis. Across this series, we’ll examine how business innovation, collaborative action and policy frameworks can move the plastic system from ambition to implementation – and share insights on why this moment demands a different approach.

In this first post, we focus on a simple reality: plastic waste policy is at a turning point. Plastic waste is no longer viewed solely as an environmental concern; it is increasingly understood as a challenge with direct public health and economic implications. Awareness is high. Expectations for action are rising.

Yet translating that shared ambition into aligned, effective action has proven far more difficult. The challenge today is no longer whether to act, but how to act collaboratively and at the scale the problem demands.

A Landscape of Progress, but Mixed Results

At the global level, negotiations toward a Global Plastics Treaty remain unfinished after three years of intensive debate. Many participating countries agree on the core elements of an agreement; 95 signed the Nice Wake-Up Call at the June 2025 UN Oceans Conference calling for a legally binding treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. While talks have stalled at points, the recent efficient election of a new Chair and the coming regional and bilateral consultations to re-establish the administrative footing for negotiations offer cautious optimism that the process may resume later this year with renewed direction.

In the United States, momentum has shifted to the state level, where Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws are emerging as a key policy tool to shift responsibility for managing product and packaging waste onto the companies that design and sell them. Early states that have passed EPR, such as those in Colorado and Minnesota, are illustrating the potential of EPR. Approved plans in these first states are beginning to align industry investment to support improved collection, recycling and reuse.

At the same time, a state-by-state approach has created a growing patchwork of differing rules, timelines, reporting requirements and performance standards. For companies operating nationally and for the system as a whole, this fragmentation makes it harder to scale solutions, invest with confidence and deliver consistent outcomes. Just as importantly, when requirements and incentives vary widely across jurisdictions, the environmental and circularity outcomes these policies are designed to achieve may fall short of their full potential. Without greater alignment, these inefficiencies risk becoming more entrenched over time, raising costs and slowing progress for businesses, communities and governments alike.

Voluntary corporate commitments, including investments in circular packaging and design-for-recycling initiatives, are also generating important lessons and spurring innovation. But the infrastructure needed to manage plastic waste and keep it out of nature, from curbside collection and drop-off facilities to material recovery and recycling operations, remains uneven and fragmented across regions. Without alignment, these efforts struggle to achieve their full potential. By their nature, voluntary efforts cannot ensure consistent coverage or long-term accountability across jurisdictions.

Taken together, these approaches represent meaningful progress. They have raised awareness, tested solutions and moved the conversation forward. However, they are also revealing a core truth: fragmented solutions can only take us so far. Without coordination, fragmentation risks locking in inefficiencies that slow progress, make it more expensive and make scaling harder.

Finding the Path Forward

The encouraging news is that the building blocks for long-term solutions are already in place. Technology continues to improve sorting and recycling capabilities. Companies are increasingly willing to invest and share responsibility. Public support for action is strong and growing. And the environmental case is clear: without ambitious action, plastic pollution will more than double by 2040 to 280 million metric tons per year — the equivalent of a dump truck entering our environment every second.

What has been missing is a policy framework that brings these elements together in a consistent, aligned way. No single company, organization or state can solve the plastic waste challenge on its own. Addressing it requires a system-wide approach that connects policy, infrastructure, investment and innovation across the entire plastic value chain. In our view, state-level policies work best when there's harmonization, and federal EPR legislation offers that opportunity.

By aligning incentives, standards and reporting, federal EPR can create the enabling conditions in which innovation in packaging design, recycling technologies and business models translates into broader, lasting impact. Clear consistent policy can also reduce long-term compliance complexity and help level the playing field for businesses of all sizes. For policymakers, it represents a tangible opportunity: to build on existing momentum, replace fragmentation with coordination and help turn widespread agreement on the problem into action that unlocks large-scale, circular solutions that voluntary efforts alone cannot achieve.

This belief in coordinated action is why WWF and SC Johnson are working together. Our partnership reflects a shared understanding that meaningful progress depends on bringing stakeholders across the plastic ecosystem together and advocating for policies that enable consistency, accountability and scale. In the posts that follow, we’ll explore what effective EPR design looks like, how collaboration accelerates implementation and what policymakers should consider as they shape the next phase of action.