A research library & world atlas

The Packaging EPR Library

The state of the research on extended producer responsibility for packaging and printed paper — 46 evidence-reviewed articles across 9 themes, and an interactive map of every packaging EPR system in the world.

The world map of packaging EPR

Select any shaded jurisdiction for its programme: when it started, who runs the producer organisation (or whether one exists at all), who oversees it, what it covers, what producers pay for, and what it reports. The United States and Canada are shown state by state and province by province — that is where the obligation actually sits.

Some jurisdictions are too small to see at this scale — Malta, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Cyprus and Prince Edward Island among them. Use the search box to reach them. Reported rates are not comparable between jurisdictions — see how rates are measured.

What this is, and who it is for

The Packaging EPR Library is an open reference on extended producer responsibility for packaging and printed paper. It gathers in one place the questions that recur wherever these programmes are designed, debated or defended — how schemes are governed and who controls them, what producers actually pay and who ultimately bears it, whether fees change what gets made, what the performance numbers really measure, and how the systems differ across Canada, the United States and Europe.

It is built on one editorial commitment: follow the evidence, and say plainly where the evidence runs out. The library takes no position on whether any jurisdiction should adopt packaging EPR, or on how any scheme should be designed. Empirical findings, model results and interested-party claims are labelled as what they are; sources are introduced on first mention so readers can weigh them for themselves; and where the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is the answer given rather than a side taken.

The field is not short of material. It is short of material that separates what has been demonstrated from what has been asserted — and that is the gap this library exists to fill.

The library

Each article takes one commonly asked question and reviews the state of the research on it: what the empirical evidence shows, what the principal positions are, and where the genuine uncertainties lie. Empirical findings, model results and interested-party claims are distinguished throughout, and every source is introduced on first mention. The rules the library holds itself to are set out under Sources and method.

How the map was compiled, and how far to trust it

Status is a simplification

The line between an operating scheme, an adopted law awaiting implementation, and a well-developed voluntary arrangement is genuinely blurred in several places. Dates mean different things too — law passed, first fees, or first collection — and each profile says which.

Rates are not comparable

British Columbia's 83% counts tonnes collected against producer-reported supply; Ontario's 57% counted tonnes marketed against estimated generation; EU figures count material entering final recycling. A higher number does not reliably mean better performance — the measurement article explains why.

Contact

Corrections, sources this library has missed, jurisdictions it has described wrongly, and questions it should be covering are all genuinely welcome — they are how a reference work stays one.

Calvin Lakhan, PhD

Director, Circular Innovation Hub
York University, Toronto

lakhanc@yorku.ca

Compiled August 2026 · Facts are current to the date stamped on each article.