The client company has initiated a major packaging assessment project aimed at identifying which product packaging within its extensive portfolio is most suited for redesign. This thesis supports the initiative by developing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) criteria to effectively filter and select the best candidates for packaging redesign, enabling the Company to strategically prioritise its efforts for maximum impact.

The approach to this thesis begins with a thorough literature review to build the theoretical background on relevant EPR regulations. This was complemented by qualitative research, involving interviews with key experts, to understand the Company’s internal processes. The research culminated in the development of two adaptive models: The EPR Fee model which is expanded with the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) model. These tools provide the Company with a foundation, upon which it can make better informed decisions.

The thesis explores the legislative differences between select EU countries and its guiding EU directives. Explored countries realise EU goals, which are specified in relevant directives on packaging and single use plastics. Country specific implementation varies, resulting in country specific tariffs and material categorisation structures. Further differences are apparent through incentives such as the EPR fee modulation scheme, which is not present in Germany. Expert interviews revealed new packaging level definitions finding adoption within the company, which are based on the EU Commission proposal on packaging and packaging waste, which is elaborated upon in the thesis. The significance of considering waste disposal, in the packaging redesign process was also divulged. The EPR models revealed that the top 1% of products represent more than half the EPR fees paid by the Company. Among them, smaller products such as Reagents, Consumables and Test Kits, represent the majority due to their sales volume. Product A, an instrument, was inspected as part of the redesign effort. The CBA model concluded that EPR fees represent an additonal 5.5% of potential cost savings for packaging.