Defining “Responsible End Markets,” and Why it Matters to Brands

As extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs move from legislation to implementation, one issue has emerged as contentious at the Paper and Plastic Recycling Conference, hosted by Recycling Today. And that's how to define a “responsible end market.”

For brand owners whose packaging enters recycling streams, the implications are enormous. If the rules governing where recycled commodities can be sold are too narrow, recyclers could lose outlets, costs could rise, and materials that are technically recyclable might no longer qualify as such. Food contact restrictions for recycled materials, for instance, can be a major barrier to PCR adoption.  

A contentious issue in Oregon

Scott Byrne, VP of global sustainability at Sonoco, sits on Oregon’s Recycling Advisory Committee, one of the first groups in the U.S. tasked with shaping a functioning EPR system.

“For responsible end markets, maybe the headline topic is that it’s probably the most contentious issue that I’ve been a part of on that group,” Byrne said. “If you get that wrong, it could almost be existential to the program. If the end markets haven’t signed up and MRFs can’t move that material, the whole system becomes very fragile.

The debate, Byrne explained, reflects a fundamental tension between credibility and practicality.

“Some stakeholders are saying responsible end markets are almost the cornerstone of the program. There’s a lack of trust in recycling—we need to make sure if it gets to an end market, you’re going to have the proper yield, the proper treatment of any residuals, the proper kind of human-rights standards, even if that means less gets recycled,” he said. “Others say, look, we need to make sure the program works first.(from lef) panelist Jeff Fielkow, CEO, Circular Action Alliance (CAA); panelist Lynn Dyer, Executive Director, AMERIPEN; panelist Scott Byrne, Vice President, Global Sustainability, Office of Legal and Compliance, Sonoco; and moderator Shannon Crawford Gay, Director of Recycling & Environmental Policy, WM [Waste Management].

Transparency and traceability take center stage

Jeff Fielkow, CEO of the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), emphasized that defining responsible end markets is not just about compliance—it’s about transparency.

“Part of the entire EPR process is to provide transparency,” Fielkow said. “You have one way to define, register, and report responsible end markets.

He recalled early discussions within the recycling sector when Oregon’s approach was first emerging.

“We didn’t really know what it meant, but I told people at the time, ‘Oregon is going to tell you where you can sell,’” Fielkow said. “I think we now realize they will tell you what markets you can sell into, how you can move materials. Being involved in defining how that will look is very important.

Compliance challenges for processors

Moderator Shannon Crawford Gay of WM pointed out that the requirements create added tension for recyclers and MRF operators already operating under strict environmental permits.

“For those of us that have permitted facilities in Oregon, we have to maintain our permits,” she said. “That’s where the tension is—we want to be in compliance with the law, and so our end markets have to be in compliance.

In other words, if end-market restrictions tighten, a MRF’s downstream partners could suddenly fall out of compliance—limiting viable outlets for sorted recyclables.

What it means for producers 

For brand owners and CPGs, this debate matters because the recycling system they fund through EPR can only function if there are healthy, compliant outlets for recovered material. If states define “responsible” too narrowly, costs could increase or certain packaging materials could lose their accepted status altogether.

Active engagement in rule-making will help producers advocate for criteria that balance environmental assurance with market functionality—ensuring that EPR delivers both accountability and operational continuity.