When it comes to EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) we have strong feelings.
Absolutely, the concept of shifting from a ‘take, make, use, throw mindset to one where, as producers, we all have responsibility for what happens to waste at end-of-life is the place we need to get to… and fast.
It’s a mindset we’ve had at Belu since day one and the work we’ve continually done, along with our partners, to reduce our carbon, packaging, water and waste footprints and move towards circularity is testament to the fact that we’re on board with DEFRA in principle at least. The problem is (as we highlighted in letter sent six months ago to to Kier Starmer and Johnathan Reynolds) that the EPR scheme is ill thought through and will have a disastrous impact on businesses, supply chains, customers and consumers. That’s why we’re not staying quiet about it.
We try to make it simple for our customers to see the benefit of partnering with Belu too. We know that meeting ESG policies can be complicated, requiring a lot of detailed information and input – so much so that they can quickly morph into tick-box exercises rather than helping to deliver intended sustainability goals.
So we’ve broken down exactly how Belu’s way of doing things directly aligns with each area of Environmental Social Governance. Put simply, choosing Belu can help you deliver your ESG goals because we’re the water brand that can help you make a real difference.
The idea is that EPR holds producers responsible for funding the total cost of managing their packaging from production to disposal.
This means they would pay to subsidise local authorities in order to cover waste processing and recycling costs. The aim being to incentivise businesses to reduce over packaging and increase the feasibility of re-use solutions because excessive, complex and single use packaging will become increasingly expensive.
Trying to encourage us all to reduce excessive packaging and drive a circular economy makes complete sense and we would applaud a shift towards increased re-usable packaging, but the proposed EPR glass fee structure is disproportionate and unfair – and is saddling businesses with huge additional costs when they’re still struggling to recover from the economic challenges of the last 5 years.
Fundamentally, the issue is that the pricing fee structure is based on packaging weight, so despite the fact that glass is infinitely recyclable, has a very high recycle rate in the UK and can be made with a high proportion of recycled material (all credentials which mean it aligns with circularity principles) it is heavy, and therefore subject to a very high fee. It is also the case that glass is being unfairly penalised because the packaging types which are notionally part of the DRS scheme, like plastic and aluminium, are exempt from any charges until 2027 at the earliest. The classification of what constitutes household waste is unclear too. For example, Belu bottles served in restaurants are classed as household waste and subject to EPR fees, even though it’s highly unlikely anyone will take them home.
Not only will this proposed plan affect business feasibility, it may mean some businesses shift to less costly but less sustainable packaging options, like virgin plastic.
Add to that the complexity of rolling out EPR, DRS and PRN (3 different packaging schemes which all require data gathering, have some crossover and are pretty complicated) all at the same time, and businesses are getting panicked. Many are only just hearing about the schemes because of the lack of communication and are now having to employ 3rd party organisations just to help them make sense of it all.
One other point we’re struggling with is that EPR does not take businesses which are social enterprises, not for profit or are mission-led into consideration.
The reduction in revenue which brands like ours will see if we have to pay the proposed EPR fees, will directly reduce the environmental and social impact we’re delivering. Increased cost means reduced profit – and for us that’s less for us to invest in carbon reduction, UK based water stewardship projects, and bringing clean water to communities worldwide in partnership with WaterAid.
If you have not yet written to the government on EPR packaging tax, now is the time. Following an initial backlash, DEFRA has published new, revised costs, but we still think they need significant reworking.
Join us in urging government to delay EPR and develop a fairer, cost-per-unit system that does not disproportionately penalise glass users, addressing the following concerns:
- Lack of Consultation: Many businesses remain unaware of impending deadlines and potential enforcement actions creating an unlevel playing field.
- Glass Fees Are Unjustified: Glass is heavy, but it is also highly recyclable in the UK and reusable. Excessive fees could push businesses toward less sustainable alternatives, like virgin plastic.
- Unnecessary Complexity: Overlapping regulations—EPR, the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), and Packaging Recovery Notes (PRN)—create confusion, inefficiency, and increased costs.
- Burden on Businesses: EPR forces companies to absorb costs due to the UK’s inadequate recycling infrastructure, rather than addressing systemic issues.
- Misclassification of Waste: For example, Glass bottles used in restaurants are wrongly classified as household waste rather than business waste, adding unfair financial burdens.
- Poor Timing: Businesses are still recovering from economic challenges, and EPR introduces additional financial strain at a critical time.
- Infrastructure Issues: Better funding alone won’t resolve recycling problems like cross-contamination and space limitations for waste separation.
A truly effective scheme should reward sustainable materials and fairly account for businesses with social and environmental missions. Our hope is that the EPR scheme is halted and reconsidered before irreversible damage is done.
You can email Chancellor Rachel Reeves at [email protected] to share your thoughts.
