Federal EPR Framework Could Halve Producer Compliance Costs: WWF-SC Johnson Analysis

A single federal extended producer responsibility framework could cut producers' compliance costs roughly in half compared with complying with 50 individual state programs, according to an economic analysis commissioned by World Wildlife Fund and SC Johnson and conducted by RTI, published in September 2026.

The findings arrive as seven U.S. states have enacted packaging EPR laws, each with its own requirements, timelines and targets. WWF and SC Johnson are using the research to renew their push for a federal framework in Washington, where nationwide EPR legislation has so far failed to advance despite a labeling-framework bill gaining some traction this year.

Erin Simon, WWF vice president and head of plastic waste and business, said the pace of state-level activity raises a structural question: "what is the tipping point for when we need to create a more coordinated approach?"

"I think you needed to have that political lab that we see happening in state-level policy first, but it's moving quite quickly. And we're quite quickly realizing that the inefficiencies are turning out to have a pretty significant dollar amount," Simon said. Those funds are coming out of what companies "would be investing into better products, more innovation and more infrastructure."

What the numbers say

The report authors project that expanding EPR into a national framework would cut annual waste management costs for local governments by 49% to 53% and generate $9.5 billion in state and local tax revenue over 10 years. Producer compliance costs also could be roughly halved by following one framework versus a hypothetical 50 frameworks.

The analysis projects labor demand gains across collection, processing and implementation functions, supporting more than 36,000 direct jobs to operate and implement policies — a figure that excludes construction employment.

Stakeholders across the packaging value chain have called for greater harmonization across state EPR laws. Simon attributes the lack of federal action partly to states' widely different starting points, which affect the time and money needed to hit targets. She contrasted California, with more political will and existing policy, against West Virginia, which has more limited infrastructure.

"What is important, however, is that the products that are going to West Virginia and to California are the same, right?" Simon said.

A federal-level campaign, she argued, could create consistency and economies of scale: "That way, the PRO or that state doesn't individually have to put the capacity and the dollars towards that." It could also reduce the burden on state and municipal governments.

Public backing, with a caveat

WWF and SC Johnson have previously advocated to members of Congress for packaging EPR, and WWF says Capitol Hill outreach will continue alongside public engagement. Next steps depend in part on the composition of the government following the November elections.

"We are already in discussions around what could be included in a federal framework and how to think about that," Simon said. The group so far has "nothing that is ready to be put out there."

Consumer research released alongside the analysis suggests public support for a harmonized system. In a May 2026 online survey of more than 4,200 adult U.S. residents conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of SC Johnson, 90% of respondents agreed that consumers, companies and government all share responsibility for reducing packaging waste. Another 91% agreed that companies will be more likely to invest in improvements when regulations are consistent.

Awareness remains the gap. Only 11% of respondents had heard of EPR for packaging, but 87% supported the concept of a federal EPR policy after reading a description. Support crossed party lines: belief in EPR and its job-creation potential ran close to equal among Democrats, Republicans and respondents identifying as Independents or other.

For brands and retailers already budgeting for multi-state compliance, the analysis puts a concrete price tag on fragmentation — and gives the federal-framework campaign its sharpest economic argument yet.