Just a few short years ago, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) seemed a long way away. Now it’s here, it’s live, and for many UK brand owners, the financial implications are already taking shape. If your business is still treating it as something to deal with later, the time to act is now.
In the following blog, we break down what EPR actually means in practice, how the new Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM) fee structure works, and, critically, what it means for the packaging decisions you make today.
As a flexible packaging partner helping brands make exactly this transition, at Eco Flexibles we want to cut through the noise and give you a clear picture of what EPR means for your business, and your bottom line.
What is EPR, and why does it matter now?
EPR is a major reform of UK packaging waste regulation, which went live from 2025. Its core principle is simple but significant: it shifts the full cost of recycling and waste management from local authorities onto the businesses that put packaging into the market.
Previously, producers covered around 10% of those costs. Under EPR, that figure moves to close to 100%. Those funds flow directly to local authorities to pay for waste collection and recycling infrastructure.
The scheme applies to ‘obligated producers’, broadly, this covers businesses with a turnover of £1m or more that handle more than 25 tonnes of packaging per year. If that’s you, this is not optional.
How much does it cost?
EPR fees are charged per tonne of packaging placed on the market, and the rates vary significantly by material:
• Plastic: £423 per tonne
• Paper/card: £196 per tonne
• Glass: £266 per tonne
But the critical detail that many brand owners are waking up to is that fees are modulated based on recyclability. Hard-to-recycle formats attract higher fees, and recyclable packaging, like the kind we focus on at Eco Flexibles, attracts lower ones. This is where the RAM (Recyclability Assessment Methodology) comes in.
RAM: The mechanism that makes packaging choice a financial decision
RAM is the scoring system used to assess how recyclable a piece of packaging actually is. Every component is rated Red, Amber or Green, and that rating directly multiplies the EPR fee you pay.
The Year 1 multipliers (2026–27) are already confirmed:
🟥 Red (hard to recycle), x1.2 the base fee, a 20% cost uplift
🟧 Amber (standard recyclability), x1.0, the baseline rate
🟩 Green (widely recyclable), approximately x0.9 the base fee, around a 10% discount
These costs intensify in 2027, where hard-to-recycle packaging will attract x1.6 the base fee, then again to x2.0 in 2028 as the fully ramped-up system comes into effect.
For flexible packaging specifically, this is where the material choices of the past become a major liability. Traditional multi-material laminates, such as the PET/PE, PA/PE, and OPP/PE structures that have been industry workhorses for decades, score poorly under RAM. They’re complex to recycle, costly to process, and under EPR, they carry a premium fee penalty.
Mono-material structures, single-polymer plastics or paper-based formats, score significantly better. They’re easier to sort and recycle in existing waste streams and therefore attract lower EPR fees. The packaging decision that was once just a sustainability conversation has become a cost liability.
Who actually pays?
This is the question that catches many brand owners out. Under EPR, it’s the ‘brand owner’ or ‘producer’ who is legally responsible for the fee; the business that places the packaged product on the market.
For own-brand products, that means you pay directly. For retailer own-label products, the retailer is technically liable. But make no mistake, they will push those costs back through the supply chain commercially. Either way, the packaging formats you’re running today will determine your exposure.
The strategic implication
EPR and RAM together create a direct commercial incentive to switch to recyclable packaging as soon as possible. Retailers managing their own EPR obligations are already scrutinising supplier packaging formats, and those running non-recyclable structures risk being benchmarked unfavourably or pushed toward redesign under commercial pressure rather than on their own terms. For own-brand lines, EPR becomes a direct cost that erodes margin unless it’s either passed on in price or designed out through smarter packaging choices.
The brands that have already made the change, shifting from complex laminates to high-performance mono-material alternatives, benefit from lower fee liabilities, stronger retailer relationships, and a credible sustainability story. Those that have delayed now face rising cost exposure and increasing pressure from retail partners who are managing their own EPR obligations.
At Eco Flexibles, we work with brand owners every day to make that transition. Not as a compromise, but as a genuine packaging upgrade. Mono-material flexible packaging today delivers the barrier performance, shelf appeal, and supply chain efficiency that brands need, without the EPR penalty that comes with mixed-material structures.
Ready to start your packaging journey? Click here to get in touch with our team today.