British Glass urges pause on pEPR over glass packaging penalties

British Glass has warned that the UK’s current packaging EPR (pEPR) undermines the glass sector by “distorting” material choices and encouraging the use of “less sustainable” packaging alternatives. 

In an evidence report sent to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), PackUK, HM Treasury, and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), British Glass suggests that the pEPR fee incentivizes packaging producers to switch from glass to plastic packaging. 

The organization recommends the UK government pause the introduction of the pEPR while the unintended consequences of the legislation are assessed. 

Packaging Insights speaks to British Glass’s director, Dr. Nick Kirk, about the industry group’s position and concern over pEPR. 

“The current pEPR fee structure unintentionally favors lightweight, less recyclable materials by penalizing heavier, infinitely recyclable options such as glass. As fees are weight-based and calculated using outdated waste material values, glass ends up carrying over a quarter of the system costs,” says Kirk. 

“This is despite the fact that glass represents less than 8% of packaging placed on the market and achieves higher rates of recycling than most other packaging materials.”

He also highlights that producers using aluminum packaging also avoid pEPR costs due to DRS policy timing gaps and fall below the minimal weight threshold by switching to lighter packaging. 

Addressing the weight bias 

British Glass suggests that the current state of the pEPR is weakening demand for glass, “a material that is widely recycled and integral to the UK’s circular economy,” urging the government to rethink the policy. 

British Glass says the current pEPR setup is reducing demand for glass and pushing a shift toward plastic.“British Glass argues that several elements of the pEPR policy need rethinking to better align the system with its stated circular‑economy goals,” says Kirk.

He adds that the consequences of the pEPR on the UK’s glass sector are already present. 

“Imports of unfilled glass containers have already risen from around 10% to 14% of the total glass placed on the UK market, suggesting that overseas supply is becoming more attractive to brands and retailers as domestic costs rise.” 

Recently, the UK Trade Remedies Authority launched two investigations into glass container imports from China and Türkiye, examining whether unfair competition and trading practices are harming the UK glass industry.

The pEPR’s weight- based system penalizes “inherently heavier but infinitely recyclable” glass packaging products, shares Kirk. He advocates moving to a volume-based approach, highlighting that packaging is purchased in units and not by weight. 

Kirk adds: “It is the number of items of packaging that impact the environment and the cost for collection and sorting.”

Sluggish systems

Kirk also stresses that recyclability modulation needs to go “faster and further” as the current landscape is not strong enough to tackle the weight bias. 

Despite Defra's pEPR reforms, Kirk says progress is too slow, with brands and retailers making packaging decisions based on current rules.He adds: “The recyclability assessment methodology requires a radical overhaul so that it distinguishes between materials that are genuinely and infinitely recyclable in the UK and require no additional chemicals or energy for the recycling process, such as glass, and those that are only theoretically recyclable.” 

Defra has planned some reforms to the UK pEPR’s, including offsets for companies implementing closed-loop waste management, fee adjustments, and fiber-based definitions.

However, Kirk argues the pace of reform is too slow for brands and retailers, who are basing packaging decisions on the current landscape. 

Recently, Packaging Insights spoke to foodservice packaging providers at Packaging Innovations in Birmingham, UK. They explained that the UK’s pEPR has sparked confusion as well as innovation. 

Securing glass’s future

British Glass also recommends pausing the legislation, which it argues would give policymakers time to work with the industry to develop a new approach that aligns with environmental goals without creating “unintended market distortions.” 

Kirk adds: “A temporary pause that aligns with the UK’s Deposit Return Scheme in October 2027 would prevent further switching to alternative materials and allow Pack UK the time needed to redesign the scheme so that it genuinely supports circular, UK-recycled materials rather than penalizing them.” 

He explains that, while other elements of UK policy have also “eroded” the ability of UK glass manufacturers, brands, and retailers to absorb pEPR costs, the weight-bias against glass packaging is “by far the biggest.” 

Kirk concludes: “DBT has supported the glass and other energy-intensive industries in securing reductions in energy prices to mitigate high UK energy costs. However, all of these together account for less than a quarter of the current glass fee.”

“Or put another way, the pEPR cost of glass has the same impact as tripling UK energy prices.”