Description of relationship to EPR for packaging policy: The National Stewardship Action Council (NSAC) is a nonprofit organization advancing smart, well-designed policies that move the United States toward a circular economy, unlocking public health, economic, and environmental benefits. With more than 60 member organizations, the NSAC team has passed more circular economy and stewardship laws than any other organization in the United States—spanning packaging, sharps and pharmaceuticals, carpet, paint, mattresses, truth-in-labeling laws, and product sales bans. NSAC served as one of the key interest holders who negotiated and drafted California's SB 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which upon implementation will become the largest packaging EPR program in the world. NSAC works across political and geographic spectrums and remains engaged from policy introduction through negotiation, rulemaking, and implementation. Our work is grounded in real-world outcomes and shaped by on-the-ground experience with policy design, negotiation, and implementation. We remain engaged from policy introduction through negotiation, bill passage, rulemaking, and implementation to ensure laws are carried out faithfully, with intent and integrity.
Recommendations for Legislators Developing EPR for Packaging Policies
1. Center EPR for Packaging Policy on Fairness, Affordability and Public and Environmental Health
Legislators should clearly anchor EPR for packaging in prioritizing a fair sharing of responsibility for the design and marketing decisions that determine end-of-life (EOL) costs, reducing system costs, and public and environmental protection, in that order. Packaging resource management systems have been disjointed and built in silos so making the “polluter pay” to incentivize reducing the number of packaging materials and increasing collection and management system efficiencies will reduce system costs. Grounding policy objectives in tangible outcomes (lower municipal costs, fair sharing of management costs between producers and others, such as local governments, haulers and, recyclers did not make the design and marketing decisions that lead to EOL management costs and should not bear the burden of those costs, reduced litter and pollution, and stronger markets)builds public trust, creates transparency and durable political support for recycling beyond environmental framing alone.
Key implications for policy design:
● Explicitly link EPR goals to fair and level playing field for business, cost containment and litter and pollution reduction.
● Remove high-risk materials and chemicals and inefficiencies in the system that create disharmony in the system and confusion and distrust by the public.
● Measure success through outcomes that matter to the public, local governments, haulers and recyclers.
2. Establish Shared Responsibility All Across System Actors
Successful EPR systems balance private-sector operational leadership with strong public oversight and transparency requirements. Producers, who control packaging design and material choices, should be responsible for funding and managing end-of-life systems. In short, internalize the externalities in economic terms. Government’s role is to set clear statutory goals, performance standards, reporting requirements, ensure transparency, and enforce compliance to protect the public interest and maintain a level playing field.
Policies should be designed around real-world infrastructure, market conditions, and implementation capacity, allowing flexibility while maintaining accountability. Clear targets, transparent reporting, and enforceable consequences are essential to prevent underperformance and ensure continuous improvement.
Key implications for policy design:
● Assign producers primary responsibility for system performance and financing.
● Define government’s role as set performance goals, ensure transparency, enforce the law to ensure a fair and level business playing field, and enforce the law – not be an operator
● Require measurable targets, public reporting, and timely enforcement.
3. Strengthen Markets and Implementation by Supporting Domestic End Markets and Preserving State Leadership
EPR policies work best when they strengthen domestic recycling and manufacturing markets, job creation, reduce reliance on volatile export systems that lack transparency, national security, supply chain resilience, and align with existing state and local leadership. Legislators should prioritize policies and purchasing decisions that support responsible domestic end markets, job creation, and supply-chain resilience.
At the same time, states and local governments should retain the ability to lead and innovate. Harmonization should emerge through shared learning and collaboration—not federal or state preemption that undermines early adopters or local conditions. Early and ongoing engagement with interest holders across industry, recyclers, haulers, NGOs, and levels of government is critical to durable implementation and program success.
Key implications for policy design:
● Incentivize domestic and North American end markets for collected materials.
● Preserve state and local authority while encouraging voluntary harmonization over time. Engage interest holders continuously from policy drafting through implementation.
For more information, please consider these external resources:
1. NSAC website and national packaging/EPR implementation working groups
2. NSAC analysis: Why California's SB 54 must succeed
3. ReMade in America initiative supporting domestic end markets
4. The 2026 Circular Economy Policy Guide: Designing What Works: From Policy to Practice in America’s Circular Economy, which addresses how to protect essential works, strengthen communities, and unlock real economic and environmental benefits through policies and solutions for packaging, deposit return systems, household hazardous waste, textiles and carpet and more.
NSAC convenes national working groups to support businesses, governments, and interest holders in advancing, implementing, and refining circular economy policies:Packaging and EPR Implementation Working Group, Deposit Return Systems WorkingGroup, Household Hazardous Waste, and more.