Skip to content

Theme 8 — The jurisdictional landscape

EPR is not one thing. Canada has run every major model simultaneously under broadly similar conditions; the United States has built seven programmes in five years with no federal framework; Europe operates four institutionally distinct families under a single directive.

This theme maps that variation, and closes with the constitutional litigation now shadowing the entire American wave — eight live cases, one fully tried, and no ruling.

The articles

8.1

How does packaging EPR differ across the Canadian provinces?

Ten provinces, every major model, and a natural experiment the country has preserved almost none of the data to read. Includes a full province-by-province reference table.

8.2

Where do the US state packaging EPR laws stand?

Seven states, one private organisation administering six of them, eight separate compliance reports in the first consolidated round, and Oregon's first operating data.

8.3

How do the European systems differ from one another?

Four institutional families, a twenty-three-fold fee spread, and the finding that the EU's best and worst performers are both in central and eastern Europe.

8.4

Eight cases across four states, tried and undecided in Oregon, with seventeen attorneys general suing California. No American court has yet ruled on EPR's constitutionality.

What this theme establishes

  • Canada has run the field's richest natural experiment and preserved almost none of the data to read it.
  • American consistency comes from a private body operating across six states, which is also what is being litigated.
  • Europe's legal frame is converging while its institutions, money and numbers are not.

Part of The Packaging EPR Library. Method and source rules are set out under Sources and method.