The government’s anticipated base fees for the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme have been released to a chorus of criticism, with critics taking aim at what is being characterised as a disproportionate and unclear burden on businesses which are already struggling with rising costs.

Payable from April 1 2025 – with invoices issued October 2025 – the fees are intended to cover the costs of waste management through payments by producers, with funds distributed to local authorities and scheme administrator, PackUK.

A full breakdown from the government on the base fees, which include £192 per tonne for glass, can be found here. 

Despite a drop in cost per tonne from the provisional figures released in December, glass container manufacturers have been especially vocal. Encirc, the UK’s leading glass packaging producer, has called for urgent intervention in a system which it says penalises sustainable materials.

“The government needs to hit the pause button on this scheme before British glass manufacturers are unfairly hit with these disproportionate costs,” a spokesperson for Encirc said.

“Sadly, the government’s pricing structure has not taken into account that glass is far more sustainable than plastic and weighs considerably more. Ministers must continue dialogue with the British glass industry before implementing EPR. It is in the best interest of consumers, businesses and glass factories for this scheme to be put on ice.”

The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) meanwhile, warned of the scheme’s scale and the need for accountability.

“These fees provide welcome clarity for manufacturers on the costs they will be facing for the first year of EPR. At £1.4bn a year, EPR is an expensive programme,” said Jim Bligh, director of corporate affairs and packaging at the FDF. 

“It’s critical that government demonstrates to industry how the scheme will deliver value for money, improve the UK’s flatlining recycling rates and build the circular economy that packaging producers expect.”

For businesses operating in hospitality, the distinction – or lack of distinction – between household and commercial waste is a sticking point. Steve Perez, CEO of Global Brands, warned that the current system risks punishing on-trade operators unnecessarily.

“Current guidance is ambiguous and in my view, it fails to properly consider the stark differences between how the on-trade and off-trade operate in regards to waste management,” Perez explained.

“Ultimately, the policy will lead to price inflation for consumers, as businesses will be unable to absorb the additional costs in their entirety and the impact of cost rises will be felt along the supply chain.”

He also raised concerns about timing, noting that while fees officially apply from April 2025, final figures won’t be published until the summer, giving businesses little certainty as they plan pricing and procurement.

Another critical issue is the shift in cost burden from councils – traditionally funded by Council Tax – to producers. Currently, there is no indication of a corresponding reduction in household tax bills. Critics argue that consumers will ultimately pay twice: once through increased retail prices and again through unchanged local taxes.

“This is yet another blow for businesses who quite simply cannot be squeezed from any more directions,” Perez said. 

Elsewhere, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) has dubbed the fees a blow to the drinks trade. 

Defra had previously announced a provisional EPR fee for glass of £240 a tonne. While the final figure has dropped to a £192 per tonne, the WSTA argues that the revised fees are still extortionately high for glass.

Miles Beale, chief executive said: “The scale of the glass fees confirms industry fears. These hefty EPR fees are still significantly more per unit compared with charges across Europe, eight times more than in Germany and three times more than in Croatia or Finland.”

He went on to explain that modulated fees have been confirmed for year two of the scheme in 2026. Packaging will increase incrementally by 1.2 times in 2026, 1.6 times in 2027 and 2 times (double the base fee) in 2028.

“There is no time to avoid these fees for produce sold this year. This is especially impactful on SMEs and importers who need time to make changes and may not have revenues to cover these unknown costs,” Beale said.

As pressure mounts, there are growing calls for Defra to revisit the structure of the EPR scheme. In particular, this includes a clearer differentiation between trade sectors, more transparent costing methods and a balanced approach to material sustainability.