With the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility and the Deposit Return Scheme, some types of packaging are set to become far more cost-efficient than others. Lizzy O’Riordan explores what will win out as the material of the future.

EPR. These are the three letters the drinks trade can’t stop talking about. Admittedly, it’s not the most glamorous topic or acronym, but ask anyone in the trade and it becomes clear that it’s one of 2025’s most pressing issues.

Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR as it’s now widely known, is the new policy that holds producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their packaging – from genesis to disposal – shifting the responsibility of waste management on to them.

It is also one of the most highly criticised policies of the moment, largely due to its regularly changing fees and primary emphasis on packaging weight. Despite the widespread chagrin, however, the facts are clear: EPR is going ahead. And with it will come a shift in how producers think about packaging materials, increasing the desirability of some while reducing the popularity of others.

GLASS

All materials will have to adapt, but it’s fair to say glass is going to be hit harder than most. A naturally heavy material, glass is predicted to face hefty fees under EPR.

Speaking about the impact, Nick Kirk, technical director at British Glass, says the industry supports the concept of EPR, but takes issue with how fees are calculated: based on tonnes, not quantity.

“Brands don’t buy a tonne of packaging. They buy a million bottles, or a million cartons. They always buy in quantity, so EPR should be calculated on that basis,” he says.

This system, Kirk goes on to explain, disproportionately affects heavier materials such as glass, despite its “true circular economy” benefits.

In turn, he warns, many producers are now considering alternative, lighter materials, especially since glass is excluded from the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, meaning no exemption from EPR disposal costs.

While efforts such as modulated fees (due in 2026) are designed to reward recyclability, Kirk believes they are “too late and not strong enough”.

“Again, like EPR, we support modulation,” Kirk says. “The principle of modulation is good: the materials that are difficult to recycle pay a higher fee. But there are two things that are disappointing. First, it’s not going to happen right away, and second, it isn’t a big enough stick.

“If you take a beer bottle, for example, that might be 5p, but the EPR fees on plastic are three or four times less. So, even if modulation has a two-times factor, the plastic is always going to be less.”

With tight margins in mind, Kirk warns this could push businesses away from glass altogether.

PLASTIC

One of the materials producers might consider instead is plastic which will be covered within the DRS if made up of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or rPET, therefore becoming exempt from EPR fees as of 2027.

Although plastic degrades slightly in quality with each recycling cycle, there are innovations emerging. Tom Murphy, technical innovation executive at Packamama, which makes rPET flat bottles, believes change is imminent: “We are in no doubt that glass wine bottles will become less of the norm in the not-too-distant future with lower-emission solutions existing.”

Murphy adds that the production of glass is energy intensive and is inefficient when it comes to transportation, resulting in high freight emissions. To him, under EPR, rPET makes much more sense as a material. “rPET has lower base material fees: it’s lightweight and uses less energy to process, meaning it equates to lower local authority costs,” he says.

Comparing the weight of a Packamama bottle to the average glass one, Murphy explains that Packamama bottles weigh just 63g – a weight reduction of nearly 89% compared to the 2023 average glass bottle weight of 550g.

Simon Mason, head of wine sustainability & due diligence at The Wine Society, says the business is also exploring rPET alongside bag-in-box formats, with some bottles made from “prevented ocean plastic”.

PAPER

Paper might seem like the obvious material of the future: lightweight, recyclable and set to face lower EPR fees. But not all paper packaging is truly recyclable due to the plastic content in many designs.

Some paper bottles on the market, for example, are only around 60% paper with an integrated layer of plastic, meaning that for most consumers, kerbside recycling is impossible. The same issues can apply to bag-in-box products. “These formats all rely on some sort of polymeric lining,” says Murphy from Packamama. “Some of these formats are recyclable as is, while others require separation for recycling, and even then recycling may not be possible.”

There are some creating genuinely recyclable paper packaging, such as Frugalpac. CEO Malcolm Waugh explains that Frugalpac bottles are made of 94% recycled paper, meaning they can be easily recycled using existing infrastructure.

He praises EPR: “It’s long overdue. If producers are required to pay the true environmental cost of their packaging, then materials that are heavy, energy-intensive or hard to recycle will become commercially unattractive.”

Waugh is less optimistic about the DRS, which excludes paper, saying: “If the UK genuinely wants to lead on green innovation, schemes like DRS need to work alongside newer, more progressive packaging formats, not against them.”

ALUMINIUM

Showcased as “the alternative material of the moment” at London Wine Fair, aluminium is light, fully recyclable and included in the DRS, making it highly attractive.

Trevor Lloyd, director of planning & procurement at Greencroft Bottling, notes that, while glass remains important, demand for canned wine is increasing annually: “Some large retailers have switched all their 18.7cl wine products into can.”

There are drawbacks however, he adds, largely based around availability. “While aluminium is infinitely recyclable,” Lloyd says, “there isn’t a limitless supply – there isn’t enough aluminium to service everything that’s currently packaged in glass.”

Nevertheless, aluminium is experiencing a wave of popularity. Jack Green, co-founder of Vinca – which packages all its wine in a can – says the company explored “everything from paper bottles to compostable formats” but settled on aluminium because of its ease of recycling.

Of EPR, Green says he hopes the policy will “level the playing field” by penalising materials that are difficult to recycle.

Likewise, Marieke Hammes, head of operations & sustainability at Canned Wine Group, adds: “New regulations should spark more conversations and hopefully foster innovation and acceptance of alternative packaging,” in what she calls a traditionally resistant industry.

Sarah Baldwin, MD at Kingsland Drinks, says aluminium’s lower EPR burden will drive uptake, with canned wine growing 13.7% by volume in the off-trade, according to Circana (52 weeks to 13/04/25).

Other producers, such as Eisberg, are promoting aluminium through ranges like Be Free, fully packaged in aluminium cans. Yet Dan Harwood, MD at Eisberg, adds a note of caution: “For wines that need to age, glass remains essential – there’s no viable long-term alternative at this stage.”

A rapidly shifting space in the drinks industry, it’s inevitable that producers will be forced to reassess packaging with EPR and the DRS on the horizon, though what they settle on is yet to be determined.