Jurisdictional comparisons in packaging laws

For packaging professionals, understanding how laws vary by region is essential for maintaining compliance and strategic alignment. Credit: Valery Evlakhov / Shutterstock

F​​​​​​​rom recyclability standards to extended producer responsibility (EPR), packaging laws differ widely depending on where you operate. A material or format considered compliant in one jurisdiction may be restricted—or even banned—in another.  

For companies with global supply chains or international markets, managing these differences has become a significant operational challenge. 

What emerges from a comparative look at packaging legislation is not only the diversity of regulatory approaches but also the growing influence of environmental policy on business decisions.  

As lawmakers place the onus on producers to manage the lifecycle of their packaging, understanding cross-border requirements is now as critical as mastering design or logistics. 

Europe remains a regulatory frontrunner, driven by its ambitious environmental agenda and harmonised legislative framework.  

At the centre is the European Union’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD), currently under revision to become the more robust Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR).  

The updated framework is expected to introduce reuse obligations, minimum recycled content thresholds, and tighter controls on packaging formats deemed “unnecessary.” If passed, it will directly affect packaging placed on the EU market, regardless of where it was manufactured. 

By contrast, the United States takes a decentralised, state-led approach. 

There is no federal packaging law, which means regulations vary significantly across states. California leads with its landmark SB 54 legislation, which sets mandatory recycling rates, imposes EPR schemes, and restricts certain plastics.

Oregon, Maine, and Colorado have passed similar legislation, though implementation timelines and compliance specifics differ. For companies operating nationally, navigating this patchwork requires tailored, state-by-state compliance strategies.

Canada sits somewhere in between.

While packaging regulation is also provincial, federal initiatives are increasingly influential. The country’s ban on single-use plastic items—including straws, cutlery, and checkout bags—was introduced by the federal government and mirrors EU-level ambitions.

Provinces such as British Columbia and Ontario are moving towards full EPR systems, placing greater responsibility on producers for collection, processing, and reporting.

In the Asia-Pacific region, regulation is more varied.

Australia operates a voluntary co-regulatory model through the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), which sets national targets for recyclable and compostable packaging.

While not mandatory, the scheme is supported by government legislation and has gained strong industry participation.

In contrast, South Korea enforces strict recyclability standards through its Ministry of Environment, requiring clear labelling and colour-coding on packaging.

China, meanwhile, is tightening e-commerce and food packaging rules as part of its broader push to reduce waste and pollution.

A key trend across all jurisdictions is the acceleration of EPR policies.  

These laws require producers to take financial and/or physical responsibility for managing their packaging waste, often through fees that fund local collection and recycling infrastructure. 

In the EU, EPR is well-established, with producers contributing to national schemes that support packaging recovery targets. The updated PPWR is set to reinforce these obligations, expanding their scope and making reporting requirements more stringent. 

Canada’s provinces are expanding their EPR frameworks rapidly, with British Columbia serving as a model for producer-funded recycling systems. Ontario has introduced a similar system that began transitioning in 2023.  

These frameworks not only impose fees but also require data reporting on materials used, which is expected to become more precise and demanding. 

In the US, four states have passed EPR legislation for packaging, with California’s model offering one of the most comprehensive implementations. Under SB 54, producers must join Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), pay eco-modulated fees, and meet design-for-recycling targets. 

 With other states poised to follow, a fragmented but fast-growing EPR landscape is emerging. 

While Australia has no mandatory EPR legislation for packaging, discussions are ongoing around implementing stronger regulatory measures to back up voluntary commitments. 

The variation in EPR design and enforcement across borders highlights the need for companies to build adaptable systems that can manage reporting, fee structures, and design compliance in multiple regions at once. 

For international companies, the key to managing these jurisdictional differences lies in robust compliance planning and regulatory foresight. A one-size-fits-all approach is no longer viable. 

The most successful organisations are integrating legal expertise into product development and sourcing teams to ensure packaging materials and formats meet the standards of every destination market.  

This often involves designing to the most restrictive standard—a practice sometimes called “designing for the strictest market”—to avoid reconfiguration costs later. 

Supply chain transparency and data collection are also becoming critical. As EPR schemes and labelling laws demand more detailed reporting, businesses must ensure their suppliers provide accurate information on materials, recycled content, and recyclability. 

Technology is playing a growing role. Compliance platforms now help monitor legal changes, flag non-conforming packaging, and automate data submission across different regulatory frameworks.  

This is particularly useful in jurisdictions like the US, where legislation evolves quickly and inconsistently. 

Collaboration with external partners—such as packaging consultancies, PROs, and national regulatory bodies—can also provide clarity and strategic insight. Industry bodies like AMERIPEN (US), FPA (US), and APCO (Australia) offer resources, advocacy, and compliance tools tailored to regional contexts.

Packaging laws are becoming more complex, interconnected, and environmentally focused. While some regions pursue harmonised regulations, others are developing in parallel, creating a diverse legal environment that demands careful navigation. 

The companies best positioned for long-term success will be those that not only meet legal obligations in each jurisdiction but also anticipate where regulation is heading.  

By taking a proactive, informed, and globally aware approach, businesses can transform compliance into a competitive advantage—driving innovation, reducing risk, and strengthening brand trust in an increasingly regulated world.