Report: The ultimate guide to global packaging sustainability regulation in 2026

A warm welcome to our annual report looking at the latest updates in packaging regulations throughout the globe, continent by continent. Pull up a chair – there’s a lot to cover.

When it comes to packaging regulation across the globe, Europe’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) seems to have monopolized all the attention in the past year or two. And while the PPWR is of course only part of the story, its sweeping common frameworks on packaging design, recyclability, recycled content, substances of concern, reuse and more, has inevitably influenced multinational companies and regulatory debate in other regions of the world.

As we noted in a previous report, one common theme we have seen globally when it comes to packaging regulation is the increasing number of extended producer responsibility (EPR) mandates emerging. It’s clear the global packaging regulatory environment is moving the focus upstream and not just on what happens to the packaging once it has entered (or exited) the value chain.

What makes the current regulatory environment particularly challenging is that there is no single global model that can be applied; what works in one region may not work in another, and even within regions regulations and infrastructure can be patchy or fragmented. A packaging format that is acceptable in one jurisdiction may face restrictions, additional reporting obligations or higher compliance costs in another. Because of this, there is no one single database to map all global packaging regulations – such a feat may be beyond even the mighty algorithm gods. But it is possible to find information on, say, plastic laws via useful databases such as https://www.globalplasticlaws.org/map

For multinational businesses, fragmentation creates a strategic challenge. Regulatory requirements can influence packaging specifications, material procurement, product development, labelling, supply-chain decisions and investment in recycling and reuse systems.

Here we map some of the more recent regulatory developments across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America. We cover the regulations already reshaping markets, the proposals and policy areas that could have the greatest impact next, and the trends we have seen emerging.

AFRICA

While packaging regulation across Africa remains fragmented and maturity varies widely between countries, it’s fair to say that significant progress has been made, with South Africa and Kenya being particularly proactive. Key bodies to this end include the African Union and the African Organization for Standardization(ARSO), which are active in driving the regional harmonization of packaging and labelling legislation to eliminate technical barriers to trade under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

EPR is becoming central to packaging regulations. Notably, earlier this year South Africa advanced a revised draft of the National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS), focusing intensely on tightening performance metrics under existing EPR packaging regulations. Kenya has similarly strengthened its approach through its Sustainable Waste Management Act, which enforces mandatory waste segregation and producer accountability.

Standardizations for food contact packaging are also developing in the region. At a regional level, the East African Community (EAC) formally notified the World Trade Organization in April and May 2025 of new packaging standards for food-contact materials across Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda, covering plastic cups, plates, and paper-aluminium foil laminates. The EAC Standards Committee met in Arusha in May 2026 to advance harmonized packaging requirements and prepare an implementation roadmap for 2026/2027, aiming to provide clear requirements for composition, testing and compliance.

A focus on upstream

Some countries are increasingly focusing on upstream approaches to managing packaging waste. For example, Kenya has enforced comprehensive plastic packaging rules under Legal Notice 181, requiring mandatory National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) licensing for manufacturing or importing plastic packaging.

Furthermore, new guidelines under the Kenya Plastics Pact are targeting 100% recyclability objectives by 2030, 40% effective recycling rates, and 15% average recycled content across all plastic packaging.

Bans on problematic plastics

Single-use and hard-to-recycle or problematic plastic bans are a continued priority for many markets in the region to combat the ‘sachet economy’ culture, covering items such as straws, cutlery, polystyrene food containers, sachets, plastic bottles and disposable food packaging.

Rwanda, for instance, has broadened restrictions on multilayer flexible packaging, meaning FMCG companies must begin to consider more recyclable mono-material packs such as those made from PE or PP. In North Africa, Egypt enacted in March 2025 a national EPR scheme for plastic shopping bags. In Ethiopia, a law passed on 2 June prohibits the import, production and use of thin plastic bags (under 0.03 mm thickness), along with disposable bottles, straws and wrappers.

In Nigeria a nationwide ban on plastic straws, cutlery, sachets, bottles and expanded polystyrene food containers took effect in January 2025.

Refill in its infancy

Like many other markets in the world, there is little to no formal regulation around refillable or reusable packaging across Africa. In some markets, however, there are well-established informal, local refill practices with water refill stations, milk ATMs and so on all familiar to consumers. This could offer a solid foundation for more formal legislation as EPR pressures grow.

Some notable examples of refill pilots across the region include, among others, Skubu in South Africa, and Gcwalisa, a township-based refill retail model operating from shipping-container outlets in Johannesburg.

Labelling requirements expanding

Environmental labelling and documentation requirements are developing slowly in some areas. Kenya has been enforcing stricter labelling requirements (under Legal Notice 181 of 2024), mandating resin codes, producer contact information and recycled-content disclosure. (The country has also said it will be endorsingbiodegradable packaging materials as part of a broader recycling framework.) Morocco has strengthenedenvironmental labelling criteria, and Tunisia has increased documentation requirements for imported packaged goods. This would seem to suggest a broader trend towards traceability and transparency throughout the packaging supply chain across the region.

In the long term, it is accepted that harmonization across Africa will be vital to realize the region’s trade and industrialization potential, hopefully reducing the compliance burden for small companies across the region. (There are concerns that sweeping bans on plastics or styrofoam will force manufacturers to scrap costly extrusion and moulding machinery, risking heavy capital investments.)

And finally, any regulation is going to come up against social realities: plastic sachets and pouches undeniably provide affordable packaging for food and clean water in lower-income communities, making restrictions hard on everyday consumers.]

ASIA

Asia is a highly diverse region of course, so again regulatory maturity inevitably varies significantly. But as in our 2025 report on global packaging regulations, Japan and South Korea continue to be the highest-performing countries.

But it is not just Japan and South Korea that are evolving: in south-east Asia, there has been a broader push towards EPR on plastics. The Philippines enacted an EPR law in 2022 requiring big companies to achieve recovery targets, starting at 20% in 2023 and increasing to 80% from 2028. Vietnam implemented EPR regulations under its environmental protection law in 2024.

In Singapore, through the Resource Sustainability Act, large businesses are required to report packaging data and submit plans for reducing, reusing and recycling packaging.

Meanwhile, Indonesia expects to finalize its EPR legislation this year, and Thailand is set to implementmandatory EPR by 2027. Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar remain at an earlier stage, building policy foundations and piloting approaches.

Fighting ‘waste colonialism’

Many Asian countries, particularly South Asian nations like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and India, have historically been disproportionately affected by the plastics crisis. While some countries have banned the practice (notably China, Thailand, Malaysia and India), other nations continue to grapple with the influx of plastic waste shipments from Western countries which are overwhelming domestic treatment plants and making regulation challenging to implement.

And even for those countries that have instigated bans, it’s important to note that the ultimate success of these depends on rigid enforcement and constant monitoring. (Were the world to eventually reach a consensus on a global plastic treaty, this would also make the enforcement of such measures easier.)

There has been some recognition among OECD countries that they need to do better. The 2024 EU Waste Shipment Regulation marks a significant step toward addressing the adverse impacts of waste trade, with a particular focus on its implications for Asian nations.

The key takeaways from the regulation include a stringent prohibition on exporting any plastic waste to non-OECD countries. Although the new Waste Shipments Regulation entered into force on 20 May 2024, most provisions apply from 21 May 2026 and most export rules will apply from 21 May 2027. It remains to be seen what real impact this will have.

Recycling and collection infrastructure

Here, again, there is huge variation across the region with some countries having more mature systems in place. One of the most obvious examples of the latter is South Korea’s jongnyangje system which requires all household waste to be separated into colour-coded bags.

Last year we mentioned that in 2014, India’s Prime Minister Modi launched the ‘Swach Bharat Mission’ (Clean India Mission), through which more than 4100 cities and towns have started collecting, sorting and recycling waste. The ‘Swach Bharat Mission 2.0’ has the ambitious target of making India ‘garbage-free’ by 2026, although it has been pointed out that there are still bottlenecks to meeting its deadline, with segregation still inconsistent, collection rates varying widely by city size and many existing data blind spots – perhaps inevitable given the scope of the challenge but not insurmountable.

Focus on food contact legislation

Upstream, recyclability and recycled content are also becoming central regulatory themes. Most recently, in January, the Japanese government has mandated companies to use 15% recycled materials for PET beverage bottles. Similarly, South Korea has enforced 10% recycled PET content for large beverage producers as of January, and the government says it will increase this by 30% by 2030.

India has also taken an important step: effective from March 28, 2025, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) amended packaging regulations to allow recycled PET in food packaging. This follows earlier 2022 amendments on migration limits for phthalates and metals. This suggests a wider regional trend towards recognizing recycled materials as part of the solution to packaging waste while maintaining food-contact safety.

Chemical safety and the banning of substances of concern is receiving greater attention. India is updating its food-contact plastics standards, including removing certain materials because of health and safety concerns. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has revised its Guide on Suitability of Plastics for Food Packaging. The document was last revised in 1999; major updates include that “[t]hermoplastics such as Vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate and Nitrocellulose have been deleted for use in direct contact with the food because of health [and] safety related concerns.”

Singapore has advanced regulatory oversight of food-contact materials and packaging waste with two major developments. The Food Safety and Security Bill, passed in January 2025, provides a legal foundation for regulating food contact packaging, enabling future bans on hazardous substances and allowing authorities to order product recalls. It replaces the Sale of Food Act of 1973.

Mandatory compliance measuring

When it comes to compliance, once again this varies regionally but broadly there are now some fairly robust mandatory requirements in place. To give just a few examples:

• Weight and Material Disclosures: Countries like Singapore enforce Mandatory Packaging Reporting (MPR) via the National Environment Agency (NEA), requiring brand owners and importers to submit annual data detailing the exact weight of packaging material placed on the market.
• EPR Target Tracking: Nations like South Korea (via KECO) and Japan require registered businesses to report packaging volume and fulfill specific annual recycling and collection quotas calculated through government-set coefficients.
• Excess Packaging Ratios: China enforces strict physical metrics under standards like GB 23350-2021, measuring packaging compliance by calculating maximum allowable empty space ratios (e.g., restricted to under 30% void space) and limiting the total number of packaging layers.
• Standardized Testing Methodologies: Japan uses a formal Positive List System for food-contact substances, requiring compositional analysis and non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) investigations.

 EUROPE

It will not come as news to our readers when we note that packaging regulation across Europe has entered a paradigm-changing new phase, spearheaded by the PPWR although also encompassing the Circular Economy Action Plan in 2020, the Single-Use Plastic Directive in 2019 and the European Green Deal. As mentioned above, the regulation represents the most substantial overhaul of packaging rules in decades, replacing the previous 1994 framework with a directly applicable, EU-wide system.

With the PPWR formally applying as of 12 August 2026, businesses across packaging supply chains now have far greater responsibility for material choices, recyclability, chemical content, labelling and waste management.

The PPWR in brief

From our recent report on the latest from the PPWR, which looked in more detail at recent developments from this and how the industry must adapt, here is a very brief recap of what the regulation covers:

• Between 2025 and 2030, implementation will be focused on secondary legislation and market adaptation. By 2030 all packaging must be recyclable, the first recycled content and initial reuse targets will need to be met, and total bans on certain unnecessary single-use packaging will come into play.
• By 2035, packaging must not only be designed for recycling but must also be recyclable ‘at scale’.
• By 2040, the final packaging waste reduction target of 15% must be met, while additional reuse targets and recycled content targets will become more demanding.

One of the most significant developments is the introduction of tighter restrictions on substances used in packaging. From August 2026, the rules include limits on heavy metals and restrictions on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in food-contact packaging.

Manufacturers will be expected to maintain technical documentation and issue an EU Declaration of Conformity. Significantly, the regulation increasingly moves packaging compliance away from simply managing waste towards actively designing for a circular economy.

Compliance itself will now be strictly measured through a dual framework combining product design rules under the PPWR and national Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) data tracking. Every piece of packaging will be assessed and assigned a recyclability performance grade ranging from A to E, based on design‑for‑recycling characteristics, compatibility with collection and sorting systems, and actual recycling performance. From January 2030, only grades A, B, or C may be marketed in the EU. This threshold tightens in January 2038, when only grades A and B will be permissible.

A single market for raw materials

Another vital regulatory step towards building a circular economy across Europe is creating a single market for secondary raw materials. The much-anticipated EU Circular Economy Act is a flagship legislative initiative scheduled for adoption by the European Commission in late 2026.

The Act, when enacted, aims to build a true single market for secondary raw materials, double Europe’s circular material use rate from roughly 12% to 24% by 2030, and reduce strategic resource dependencies.

Challenges around implementation

The PPWR is replacing a long-established regime of separate regional obligations, many of them non-binding, so there have been legitimate concerns about whether businesses can realistically rebuild internal roles, produce the necessary documentation and meet data requirements in time for the deadline.

And to reiterate, 12^th August is not the only deadline: from 2030, much of the market must have increased recycled content and those businesses that have put off sourcing decisions will find sourcing much harder – not to mention more expensive – than competitors who have had the wherewithal to move earlier.

There is also the possibility of an uneven transition. Alongside the EU-wide PPWR, companies will continue to have to take into account national registration and reporting systems. France is just one example of this: its Triman logo and Info-tri sorting rules, adopted under national law before the PPWR, remain mandatory, even as the Commission challenges them as a barrier to free movement. The PPWR is intended to resolve this tension from 2028, but the proviso is that the Commission adopts the labelling implementing act on time.

Overall, while the PPWR is a landmark regulation for global packaging, there are still elements of uncertainty – even after the recently published documents such as the EU’s guidance document and fact sheet, which in some cases have actually served to create more questions.

NORTH AMERICA

As with most of its areas of regulation, the United States government has left waste management to the individual states. Recycling and collection regulations are decentralized and vary extensively by country, state/province, and municipality. There is no single national mandate for household recycling; instead, rules rely on a patchwork of local laws, regional landfill bans, container deposit programs, and emerging producer responsibility frameworks.

Companies also face different labelling, recycled content, and material bans depending on the jurisdiction. Rules in California do not match those in Florida or New York, driving up logistical and design costs.

Federal vs. state

Unlike the EU, North America operates through a combination of federal requirements, Canadian provincial frameworks and US state-level legislation. This creates significant variation in obligations for companies selling packaging across multiple jurisdictions.

At the federal level, the United States continues to regulate packaging waste management primarily through consumer protection and product-safety legislation, including the Fair Packaging and Labelling Act and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements governing food-contact materials, leaving routine municipal recycling completely optional at the federal level. Many states have their own hazardous waste programmes that are authorized by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) but can enforce stricter standards. For example, California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) mandates stringent reporting and handling requirements.

Canada’s packaging and labelling requirements are similarly regulated federally by Environment and Climate Change Canada, which oversees cross-border and interprovincial movements of hazardous and recyclable materials, while everyday municipal operations fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

In the US, there has been some pushback on this federal vs. state dichotomy. Proposed frameworks such as the PACK Act are attempting to centralize green marketing definitions to prevent greenwashing, but progress is slow and local laws still largely dominate, leaving much room for liberal interpretation.

Extended producer responsibility

On a positive note, over the past year, North American packaging regulations have shifted toward state-driven EPR laws. In the US, comprehensive packaging EPR frameworks have been introduced in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. California’s SB 54 represents a particularly significant development, establishing extensive requirements for reducing and managing single-use packaging and advancing producer accountability.

But as we noted in our previous in-depth report on the subject of global EPR, “North America is essentially at two different levels of maturity, with Canada’s national EPR strategy dating back to 2009 and Federal initiatives, including the Federal Plastics Registry, add another layer of reporting requirements. Here, both EPR and ‘product stewardship’ programs are used to manage products at their end-of-life. Producers are generally required to register with provincial authorities, report on materials placed on the market, and fund recycling systems via a Producer Responsibility Organization.

“There has also been some pushback in the States: in February 2026 the US District Court for the District of Oregon granted the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors Inc. (NAW) a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Modernization Act (RMA) – potentially affecting the scope of EPR rollout throughout the state.”

Material restrictions

Alongside EPR, restrictions on specific materials are accelerating. US states are introducing measures addressing single-use plastics, expanded polystyrene and intentionally added PFAS in food packaging. For example, Illinois introduced a ban on food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS from January 2026, while Maine has expanded restrictions affecting treated fibre and single-use food-service packaging.

Canada’s federal court upheld the designation of plastic-manufactured items as “toxic” under the environmental protection act, which has drawn pushback from industry supply chains concerned about fresh produce and food safety.

Reporting and compliance are increasingly data-driven

Across the US, producers are generally required to quantify packaging by material type and report the weight of packaging placed on relevant markets. Requirements may also extend to recycled content, recyclability and packaging format.

California’s recyclability requirements, for example, demonstrate the growing importance of substantiating environmental claims rather than simply reporting material volumes.

Overall, North American packaging regulation is moving towards greater producer accountability, more detailed material reporting and stronger financial incentives to redesign packaging, but without a unified regulatory system.

OCEANIA

The past year has been a real watershed for Australia’s packaging regulations, as we have reported on. Following the failure of voluntary targets, Australia is transitioning to mandatory, legally enforceable packaging regulations by 2026, enforced by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW).

One notable development to come from this has been South Australia’s compostable labelling rules which went into effect on 1 March 2026.

From 1 March 2026, South Australia requires that every individual certified compostable food container and beverage cup must be clearly labelled with its compostability type. This means labelling on the outer packaging alone is no longer sufficient.

APCO becomes mandatory

Up until recently, the Australian Packaging Covenant Organization (APCO), which provides a framework for measuring packaging sustainability, operated on a voluntary compliance model. However, under the new framework rolling out from 2026, businesses with an annual turnover above $5 million AUD that place packaging on the Australian market must meet packaging reporting requirements under the NEPM framework (APCO membership is the primary compliance pathway). Companies must report detailed packaging data, including what materials they use, how much, and their recovery rates. National Packaging Targets will now become enforceable. These targets were set with an original deadline of 2025, but a revised target date will be released.

In the meantime, APCO has introduced a 2030 Strategic Plan, which sets out a 100% reduction, reuse, and recovery target for packaging in Australia; a 70% recycled or composted target for plastic packaging; an average threshold of 50% recycled content for packaging; and a landfill reduction target of 1 million tonnes.

Expanded single-use plastic bans across multiple states

Single-use plastic bans continue to spread across Australia. While every Australian state and territory has introduced restrictions on certain plastic products, the specific items affected vary between jurisdictions – as this state-by-state breakdown demonstrates.

Western Australia has extended its bans to included moulded EPS packaging while South Australia has implemented a world-first ban on small pre-filled containers – notably, the ubiquitous fish-shaped soy sauce bottles.

Extended producer responsibility

Unsurprisingly, a key part of Australia’s new regulatory framework is the proposed Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026, which mandates producer accountability, while state-level initiatives, such as the NSW Plastics Plan 2.0, introduce phased bans on materials through 2030. (Up to now, Australia had been operating under a voluntary, co-regulatory producer responsibility model led by APCO.)

But state governments are not necessarily waiting for the regulation to be formalized. New South Wales has implemented its Product Lifecycle Responsibility Act 2025, phasing out hard-to-recycle plastics, making tethered caps on beverage containers mandatory by 2030 and introducing labelling for away-from-home packaging. And nationwide, the Australasian Recycling Label (ARL) support consistent communication of disposal and recyclability information

New Zealand

New Zealand has adopted a more direct product-stewardship approach. Restrictions on problematic plastics, including certain PVC and polystyrene applications, are being accompanied by measures encouraging greater use of recycled content and more readily recyclable formats.

The country regulates product packaging primarily through single-use plastic bans under the Waste Minimization Act 2008 and ongoing implementation of mandatory product stewardship for plastic packaging. Key rules for recent and the coming years include phasing out hard-to-recycle plastics, setting home-compostable standards for produce labels, and establishing producer responsibility frameworks, as follows:

• October 2022: Banned single-use plastic drink stirrers, plastic-stemmed cotton buds, degradable plastic products, PVC meat/produce trays, and expanded polystyrene food/beverage packaging.
• July 2023: Banned single-use lightweight produce bags, plastic plates, bowls, cutlery, most plastic straws, and standard non-compostable plastic produce labels.
• July 2025 / July 2028: Extending home-compostable adhesive and label requirements for domestic and imported fresh produce, pushing full compliance deadlines out to July 1, 2028. 

SOUTH AMERICA

In South America, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Colombia in particular have made progress with waste management and material reduction policies.

Brazil is becoming a major driver of regulatory change. Decree No. 12,688, effective from January 2026, introduces mandatory reverse-logistics requirements for plastic packaging alongside minimum recycled-content and recovery targets. The initial requirements include a 22% recycled-content target and a 32% recovery rate for 2026, signalling a move towards measurable, outcome-based regulation.

Compliance increasingly depends on documented packaging volumes, material composition and evidence of recovery or reverse-logistics activities. Brazil’s approach is particularly significant given the scale of its consumer market and is likely to influence packaging design and supply-chain practices across the region.

Extended producer responsibility

EPR systems are a growing feature of the South American regulatory landscape, although their scope and implementation vary considerably between countries.

Chile’s Ley REP (Law 20.920) is among the region’s most advanced frameworks, requiring producers to meet defined collection and recycling targets for packaging through authorized Producer Responsibility Organizations. Colombia’s Resolution 1407 similarly requires producers to establish environmental management plans and report the quantities and types of packaging placed on the market and subsequently recovered. These systems demonstrate a broader regulatory shift towards making producers financially and operationally responsible for packaging throughout its life-cycle.

Utilizing the informal sector

At the same time, policymakers are confronting a fact that distinguishes many Latin American recycling systems from those in more developed markets: waste pickers already recover a substantial share of recyclable materials. Estimates put the number of waste pickers at around two million, with these workers contributing as much as half of recovered recyclable material from municipal waste in the region.

The challenge for policymakers, then, is how to incorporate and utilize those existing informal networks into more formal producer-responsibility and recycling systems without replacing them wholesale.

Again, Brazil provides an important example. The above-mentioned plastic-packaging reverse-logistics system provides for the participation of waste-picker cooperatives and other organizations in selective collection, sorting and other parts of the recovery chain. It also allows formal agreements under which these organizations can be paid for services.

A circular packaging system requires a reliable flow of recovered material. Waste-picker organizations can provide an important link between discarded packaging and recyclers, while formal contracts, improved equipment, sorting facilities and traceability systems can help connect that activity to larger supply chains.

Food contact an increasing focus

MERCOSUR, the South American economic and political trade bloc founded in 1991, provides an important common regulatory framework for Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, particularly for materials intended to come into contact with food. Its standards establish requirements covering authorised substances, Good Manufacturing Practices and chemical migration limits for packaging materials.

Key updates from MERCOSUR include strict restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA), ongoing harmonization with European Union standards, and new technical rules for cellulosic and recycled plastic materials. Resolution No. 02/25 amends Resolution No. 40/15, updating technical regulations on cellulosic materials in contact with food. One key revision within the amendment: recycled-fibre articles must keep diisopropylnaphthalene (DIPN, 38640-62-9) ‘as low as technically feasible’. Resolution No. 28/24 amends the positive list for food-contact plastics (GMC Res. 02/12) with two new substances. The resolution was passed in December 2024 and began being enforced in early 2025.

Recent developments indicate continued alignment of national requirements with these regional standards. For example, Argentina’s Resolution 1/26, adopted in April 2026, updated its rules for plastic materials in contact with food by incorporating revised positive lists of authorized monomers and starting substances. Elsewhere, Peru has proposed updated food-contact rules intended to accommodate a wider range of materials and the safe incorporation of recycled plastics.

Future considerations

Collection remains inconsistent across South American markets and recycling capacity also differs sharply between countries and regions, while the supply of high-quality recycled material may not match growing demand. Competition for suitable recycled feedstock is likely to make compliance more difficult.

On the plus side, it has been pointed out that the region has an energy advantage. Renewables account for about 60% of the electricity generation in Latin America and the Caribbean, around twice the global average, according to the International Energy Agency. This can create lower-emission recovery infrastructure as recycling capacity and demand for recyclate increases.

TAKEAWAYS

For businesses along the value chain, wherever they are in the world, a lot of this may seem daunting: there is no longer such a thing as a simple packaging compliance strategy.

That said, there are common threads we can draw from all the above. Governments around the world are increasingly asking businesses to take responsibility for what they put onto the market and to design packaging with its entire lifecycle in mind, rather than leaving the responsibility to institutions. Financial mechanisms are also being used to influence packaging design. Under EPR systems, eco-modulated fees can make difficult-to-recycle packaging more expensive to place on the market, creating a direct economic incentive to improve recyclability and increase recycled content.

Compliance with regulation is becoming increasingly data-driven. Companies may also face registration requirements, environmental fees, audits and inspections covering packaging composition, weight and labelling.

For businesses operating internationally, there are some key steps to bear in mind when it comes to compliance:

• Map your regulatory exposure: Businesses first need to know exactly where they have obligations. That means mapping every market in which they manufacture, import, distribute or sell packaged products, and identifying the relevant EPR schemes, material restrictions, labelling rules, reporting requirements and deadlines. What constitutes compliance in one market will not necessarily be the case in another.
• Know your packaging: Companies need data on exactly what materials and formats they use, how much packaging they place on each market, what proportion is recycled content, and how individual components perform against local requirements.
• Design for the most demanding requirements: The PPWR is increasingly seen as the strategic benchmark for any packaging portfolio today, regardless of where your products are sold. Companies that build their material strategies and data infrastructure around PPWR-grade requirements, wherever they are in the world, may
• Build traceability into the supply chain: As EPR expands apace across the globe, businesses will need to prove their claims. That means establishing reliable documentation for material composition, recycled content, recyclability, suppliers, packaging weights and recovery outcomes.
• Understand that regulation evolves: The regulatory landscape will not stand still. New EPR schemes will emerge, existing systems will be tightened, national requirements will continue to diverge and technical standards will advance. Businesses therefore need to get used to monitoring regulatory changes and developing a process to incorporate these into their packaging design, procurement and investment programmes.

Perhaps the most important lesson from the global picture is that regulatory compliance and packaging circularity are two sides of the same coin. Compliance on its own in future may no longer be enough: in a global marketplace, producers must also ask whether their technically compliant packaging system will actually work on the markets in which it will be sold.

A package can meet a recyclability standard on paper and still fail to be recycled because there is no collection system. It can be designed for reuse but fail because consumers do not adopt the model. And, as the experience of Latin America demonstrates particularly clearly, existing informal recovery networks may be just as important to a successful circular economy as formal infrastructure.

Packaging legislation may continue to be local in many cases, but producers must increasingly think globally.

If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:

The ultimate guide to packaging innovation in 2026

Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: what to know in 2026

Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation

Strategic learnings from the Sustainable Packaging Summit