As Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws move from pilot programs to coordinated multi-state mandates, food and beverage companies are learning how to comply with the annual reporting requirements and fee structures tied to material type and volume, and associated daily fines if they do not comply.
Anna Kendall, Senior Manager, US EPR Leader, Ernst & Young LLP
The May 31, 2026 deadline is the sharpest test yet. Six states (California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington) require EPR data reports on the same day. (Maine will have its own deadline, which is yet to be finalized.) Most companies are working through the complexity of manual processes, incomplete supplier data, and cross-functional coordination they’ve never had to nail before.
To find out how manufacturers should prepare, we consulted Anna Kendall, Senior Manager and US EPR Leader at Ernst & Young LLP. Kendall shares what makes the 2026 coordinated deadline so different from last year’s staggered rollout, where companies face ongoing challenges in their early reporting efforts, and the strategic advantages of leveraging EPR data.
Q. For food and beverage companies that are just getting up to speed, can you explain what EPR requires of them and why the May 31, 2026 deadline is such a significant moment?
Anna Kendall: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) requires food and beverage companies to understand what packaging, paper, and food serviceware they place on the market. Then, where they are the obligated producer for those materials, it requires companies to annually report information about those materials, and pay corresponding fees tied to the amount and type of material sold. In practice, it requires companies to connect packaging specifications, supplier data, product sales, and state-by-state applicability rules in a repeatable, defensible way.
The May 31 deadline is a landmark moment because it represents the first coordinated, multi-state reporting cycle. Last year, companies had to comply with three states with staggered timelines and were able to build the tools and knowledge to comply over time. 2026 is the first year US companies must operationalize these obligations at scale across six states simultaneously.
Q. With six states all requiring EPR data reports on the same day for the first time, what makes this coordinated deadline particularly challenging for food manufacturers that sell across multiple markets?
AK: While the deadline is unified, the requirements are not. For food and beverage companies operating across multiple states, this means navigating different definitions of covered materials, unique producer hierarchies, state-specific small producer exemptions, and different categorical exclusions. Many of these differences involve nuanced interpretations, such as how bottle bill exemptions apply to transport packaging or whether certain food serviceware is in or out of scope, turning compliance into a complex, state‑by‑state scoping and data‑mapping exercise rather than a single reporting workflow.
The challenge is amplified by first‑year data immaturity and upstream dependencies. Most companies are still relying on manual data collection processes and are dependent on suppliers for packaging weight and material classification data. This results in a perfect storm of operational strain, cross-functional coordination challenges, and heightened compliance risk with six of the seven states converging on one reporting date.
Q. What are the most common mistakes companies are making in their early EPR reporting efforts, and what do those missteps put at risk?
AK: Many companies underestimate the complexity of regulatory scoping, specifically in determining which brands, subsidiaries, and selling models trigger obligations in each state. This is especially true for food and beverage companies as it applies to private label, licensed, and co-branded products.
This challenge is often compounded by unclear internal ownership of EPR compliance, which can slow decision-making and create conflicting interpretations of producer responsibility across sustainability, procurement, legal, tax, and compliance teams. Many teams also wait too long to engage suppliers, only to discover critical data gaps they can’t close before deadlines, forcing internal teams to navigate material categorization and weight estimates on their own with limited data availability.
These missteps put companies at risk through missed or inaccurate filings that can trigger significant daily fines, public non-compliance listings, and even prohibitions on selling into the states. In short, EPR errors don’t just create compliance headaches, they can expose financial, operational, and reputational risk all at once.
Q. Many companies rely on existing data infrastructure, like spreadsheets, ERP systems, and manual processes, to manage packaging data. What are the gaps in that approach when it comes to EPR compliance, and what does a more effective data strategy look like?
AK: Data management and manual processes were a major pain point in the first year of reporting. Companies quickly ran into issues with inconsistent definitions across states, limited audit trails, and data that lives in silos across procurement, supply chain, finance, and packaging teams. Supplier-provided data is often incomplete or nonstandard, and manual processes simply don’t scale to new state requirements.
A more effective EPR data strategy connects packaging specifications, supplier data, and sales information into a repeatable, documented process that can be refreshed annually and withstand third-party scrutiny. Ideally, this future state includes centralized data repositories, automated material-level calculations, validation rules, and system integrations with Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems. AI can further support gap-filling, calculations and reporting efficiency, and can also augment these systems directly by automating data validation, enhancing predictive analytics, and streamlining tasks within ERP and PLM platforms.
Q. You’ve mentioned “ecomodulation” as a way companies can reduce their EPR fee burden while also driving packaging innovation. Can you walk us through how that works?
AK: Ecomodulation adjusts EPR fees by rewarding more sustainable packaging and penalizing hard-to-recycle materials. At its core, EPR fees are calculated as (packaging weight × material fee), then adjusted through bonuses or maluses, some of which are applied automatically (“passive ecomodulation”) and others which are earned by demonstrating design changes (“active ecomodulation”). These opportunities and their verification requirements vary by state. For example, in Colorado, the lightweighting bonus verification must demonstrate 10%+ reduction in packaging weight of the SKU to qualify for bonus, and in Oregon, companies must submit LCAs to qualify for ecomodulation bonuses.
Active ecomodulation bonuses are capped, meaning the biggest savings usually come from reducing the base fees themselves itself through lightweighting, material substitution, elimination, or format changes not beholden to specified active ecomodulation bonus verification requirements.
It’s worth noting that the food and beverage sector is generally more advanced in EPR readiness than industries like manufacturing or technology. However, these companies often face greater challenges with ecomodulation due to their high‑volume, highly diverse packaging portfolios, combined with strict food safety requirements and consumer expectations for single‑use formats. Together, these factors limit design flexibility and create unique, sector‑specific constraints that make fee optimization more complex.
Q. Beyond compliance, what’s the strategic opportunity here for food and beverage companies that get ahead of EPR?
AK: Leading food and beverage companies are moving beyond viewing EPR as a compliance checkbox and using it as a catalyst for business transformation. Early leaders are already leveraging EPR data to identify fee hotspots, connect packaging design choices to financial outcomes, and prioritize high-impact redesign efforts. This visibility creates a clear business case for packaging innovation and supports investments in lightweighting, material shifts, and reuse that can improve margins over time.
Companies that move early can embed EPR into core decision-making, rather than treating it as a bolt-on compliance exercise. Beyond cost reduction, getting ahead of EPR enables stronger integration of sustainability into packaging innovation and supplier negotiations. Those that build robust data, governance, and accountability now are better positioned to de-risk sustainability claims, protect margins, and turn EPR into a durable competitive advantage, not just another regulatory burden.
