Economic Analysis of a U.S. National Extended Producer Responsibility Framework

The report models a hypothetical national EPR framework in the U.S. to evaluate the economic benefits of harmonization over fragmented state-level policies. Key findings indicate that such a framework could reduce municipal waste management costs by 49%–53%, generate $111 billion in economic value added over 10 years, and significantly lower producer compliance costs. The analysis also highlights job creation in recycling infrastructure and innovation, particularly in the food and beverage sector, and examines the potential for improved domestic rPET markets and rural recycling access.

• A harmonized national EPR framework could significantly reduce waste management costs for local governments in both urban and rural areas, providing them with greater fiscal flexibility.
• National EPR-related investments in recycling infrastructure, operations, and education are projected to contribute $111 billion in economic value added and $9.5 billion in state and local tax revenue over a 10-year period.
• Harmonization reduces the administrative burden on producers; complying with 50 unique state policies would cost an average producer approximately $8.3 million annually, compared to $4.3 million under a single uniformly defined policy.
• EPR implementation is expected to support substantial employment, including 275,500 job-years over five years during infrastructure investment and 36,200 steady-state operational jobs for collection, sorting, and processing.
• In the food and beverage sector, EPR-driven packaging innovation is estimated to support 79,900 job-years annually, involving materials science, engineering, and design roles.
• EPR could stabilize the domestic rPET market by increasing PET bottle recycling rates by 30 percentage points, potentially doubling collection and reducing reliance on imports.
• Reuse systems can create economic value through service-based models, with 71% of surveyed sports and entertainment venues reporting measurable cost reductions using reusable models.
• State-level case studies show varying impacts based on local conditions: Texas could see $1.1 billion in annual economic contribution, while Colorado could generate $205 million in annual economic activity under the modeled framework.

APA

Morrison, L., Merker, J., Nienow, S., Dotson, C., Narode, A., Weitz, K., & Pero-Parker, J. (2026). Economic Analysis of a U.S. National Extended Producer Responsibility Framework. WWF International. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/2637/Economics_of_US_Federal_EPR_Final_9_ciqwOzU.10.26.pdf

Chicago

Morrison, Laura, Jonathan Merker, Sara Nienow, Carly Dotson, Asmita Narode, Keith Weitz, and Jamie Pero-Parker. Economic Analysis of a U.S. National Extended Producer Responsibility Framework. WWF International, 2026. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/2637/Economics_of_US_Federal_EPR_Final_9_ciqwOzU.10.26.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Morrison |first1=Laura |last2=Merker |first2=Jonathan |last3=Nienow |first3=Sara |last4=Dotson |first4=Carly |last5=Narode |first5=Asmita |last6=Weitz |first6=Keith |last7=Pero-Parker |first7=Jamie |title=Economic Analysis of a U.S. National Extended Producer Responsibility Framework |publisher=WWF International |date=September 2026 |url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/2637/Economics_of_US_Federal_EPR_Final_9_ciqwOzU.10.26.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{morrison2026economic, author = {Morrison, Laura and Merker, Jonathan and Nienow, Sara and Dotson, Carly and Narode, Asmita and Weitz, Keith and Pero-Parker, Jamie}, title = {{Economic Analysis of a U.S. National Extended Producer Responsibility Framework}}, institution = {WWF International}, year = {2026}, month = sep, url = {https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/2637/Economics_of_US_Federal_EPR_Final_9_ciqwOzU.10.26.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }