The Implementation
One year later, Germany implemented it.
The 1991 Packaging Ordinance (Verpackungsverordnung) was an early national implementation of producer responsibility for packaging, creating the "dual system" alongside municipal collection.2 Environment Minister Klaus Toepfer created a system where producers funded household packaging collection directly. Not local authorities. Not taxpayers. Producers.
The system created the Green Dot: a symbol on packaging indicating the producer had paid into the Duales System Deutschland. Fees were based on packaging type, weight, and recyclability. There was no threshold — the obligation began with the first piece of packaging a company placed on the market.3
German producers paid. By 2017, their costs were more than EUR 48 per tonne recycled.4
This is the control group. This is what "producer responsibility" looks like when someone takes the words seriously.
The Agreement
Now we cross the Channel.
The UK adopted "producer responsibility" six years after Germany. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations came into force on 6 March 1997.5 The phrase appeared in the title.
But the meaning had changed.
I found the moment it changed. It is recorded in Hansard, the official transcript of Parliament. House of Lords, 24 February 1997. The debate on the new regulations.
"The regulations are based on an industry agreement reached on 15th December 1995 between all four principal parts of the packaging chain on the share of responsibility to be taken by each sector."6
I read that sentence three times. "Industry agreement." Not government proposal. Industry agreement.
On 15 December 1995, representatives of the Food and Drink Federation, the Alcoholic Drinks Industry Group, the British Retail Consortium, and the packaging industry sat in a room and decided what "producer responsibility" would mean in the United Kingdom.6
They decided it would mean: shared.
The Split
The industry agreement established a percentage split across four parties.7
| Party | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Raw material manufacturer | 6% |
| Converter | 9% |
| Packer/filler | 37% |
| Seller | 48% |
Add them up: 100%. The Food and Drink Federation told Parliament that under these regulations, "packers/fillers and retailers will together carry the majority of the responsibility for the recovery of packaging waste — a minimum of 83 per cent."6
Sounds comprehensive. Here is the trap.
The 100% is of recovery obligations. Recovery — the handling of material after it's collected — is only one slice of packaging waste management costs. Collection — getting the material from households in the first place — is the expensive part. And collection was not included.8
Under the UK system, producers paid for recovery. Local authorities paid for collection. "Shared responsibility" shared the small part. The large part — the GBP 700 million part — remained with taxpayers.
The Gap
In 2018, the National Audit Office published the numbers.4
"Businesses paid GBP 73 million towards the cost of recycling their packaging through the system in 2017."
"The Department estimates that English local authorities spent GBP 700 million (gross) on collecting and sorting packaging waste."
GBP 73 million from producers. GBP 700 million from taxpayers. That is 9.4% and 90.6%.
The NAO did the European comparison. UK producers paid EUR 13 per tonne recycled. In Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands — countries using the same phrase, "producer responsibility" — producers paid more than EUR 48 per tonne.4
UK producers paid 73% less than their European counterparts.
Same phrase. Opposite systems.
In Germany, "producer responsibility" meant producers funded household collection. In the UK, "producer responsibility" meant producers bought certificates while taxpayers funded collection.9
The phrase traveled across the Channel. The meaning did not.
The Timeline
The UK's packaging producer responsibility regime began in 1997 and, through later consolidations (including 2005 and 2007), operated under successive regulations until it was replaced by the 2024 Regulations.10
Nearly three decades.
For nearly three decades, companies complied with their "producer responsibility obligations" by purchasing Packaging Recovery Notes. For nearly three decades, local authorities collected household packaging and sent the bill to council tax payers. For nearly three decades, the phrase "producer responsibility" appeared in government documents, industry reports, and sustainability commitments.
Based on the NAO's 2017 finding — that producers paid approximately 10% of actual costs — the cumulative transfer over those years runs into the billions of pounds.11 The exact figure would require year-by-year data that is not publicly available. But the order of magnitude is clear: what should have been producer cost became taxpayer cost, year after year, under a phrase that suggested the opposite.
The Names
Who benefited from paying 10% instead of 100%?
The companies that place packaging on the UK market. The brands whose products fill supermarket shelves and, eventually, recycling bins.
I cannot tell you exactly how much packaging each company produces — that data is commercially confidential. But I can tell you whose products appear most frequently after consumers are done with them.
Surfers Against Sewage conducts annual brand audits, collecting data on branded litter found during beach cleans across the UK. Since 2019, Coca-Cola has topped Surfers Against Sewage's Brand Audit "Dirty Dozen" list repeatedly.12 McDonald's, PepsiCo, and Nestle regularly appear in the top rankings.12
To be clear: appearing in litter surveys does not prove a company produces the most packaging. It may reflect high sales volume, durable packaging materials, or consumer disposal patterns. The attribution must be precise.
What I can say is this: the companies whose products are most visible in post-consumer waste — Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, McDonald's, Tesco — are among those who, for nearly three decades, paid approximately 10% of the cost of managing that waste under a system called "producer responsibility."13
Many of these companies are members of the UK Plastics Pact, voluntarily committing to reduce plastic waste.14 The voluntary commitment existed alongside the legal obligation. The legal obligation was 10%.
The Acknowledgment
In 2019, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a consultation on reforming the system. The coverage was telling.
Resource Magazine, reporting on the DEFRA consultation: "Producers currently only pay around 10 per cent of this cost, with local authorities shouldering the remainder of the burden."15
The government acknowledged the 10% figure. Not as an accusation — as a starting point for reform.
The new regulations took effect from 1 January 2025, with the revised Extended Producer Responsibility scheme beginning in April 2025.10,16^ The new regulations shift full net costs to producers. The government estimates this will transfer approximately GBP 1.2 billion annually from local authorities to producers.16
I almost admire the precision of that admission. GBP 1.2 billion annually. That is the amount that was NOT being transferred to producers under the previous "producer responsibility" system. That is the gap the phrase concealed.
The Question
Thomas Lindhqvist invented a phrase in 1990. He meant: manufacturers responsible for the entire life-cycle, including take-back, recycling, and final disposal.
Germany implemented it in 1991. Producers paid full costs.
UK industry redefined it on 15 December 1995. "Shared responsibility." Four parties. Recovery only. Ten percent.
The UK government codified the redefinition in 1997. The phrase "Producer Responsibility" appeared in the title of the regulations. The regulations required approximately 10% producer contribution.
For nearly three decades, companies met their "producer responsibility obligations." For nearly three decades, taxpayers paid 90% of actual costs. For nearly three decades, the phrase performed the work the system did not.
I went looking for a villain. I wanted someone who lied, someone who cheated, someone to blame.
I found something more interesting.
No one lied. The industry agreement was documented in Parliament. The cost split was public. The NAO published the gap. DEFRA acknowledged the 10% figure.
The phrase did the work. "Producer responsibility" sounds like producers are responsible. It sounds like the German system, like the Swedish concept, like what Lindhqvist intended. It does not sound like: producers pay 10%, taxpayers pay 90%.
The word "responsibility" performed the rhetorical work the regulations did not perform materially. Every time someone said "the UK has producer responsibility for packaging," the phrase created the impression of accountability. The system created a transfer.
EPR is here now. The phrase, finally, is approaching its original meaning — thirty-five years after Lindhqvist wrote it down.
The billions already transferred will not come back. But now you know what the words meant.
When you hear "producer responsibility," ask: what percentage?