Measure to Improve has launched two new solutions to help produce companies meet growing reporting and regulatory expectations: the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Solution and the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Readiness Solution.
“We feel there is a really strong need for this,” says Corinne Carney, director of sustainability solutions for Measure to Improve. “These are complicated concepts. They’re tough to get your head around.”
She says these solutions are designed to help demystify some of the concepts in a way that is more grounded in the fresh produce industry.
Navigating the EPR Maze
EPR laws require companies to track packaging materials, register with a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) and, in many cases, contribute fees tied to packaging volumes. Measure to Improve says its solution helps organizations understand what information is required, identify where that information exists internally and prepare teams for reporting obligations.
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Solution helps companies build a credible, well-documented emissions inventory that supports buyer requests, sustainability reporting and future climate disclosure requirements. The focus is on creating a structured, repeatable process so emissions can be measured and managed year after year, Measure to Improve says.
“There’s so many small nuances and details that are not quite apparent from the jump; that’s where we just try to help demystify some of those things, because it’s all new,” Carney says of these EPR regulations.
She says 1 in every 5 Americans lives in a state with an EPR law, and each law is slightly different and in different phases of implementation. Some states have already begun charging EPR fees, and some have not. All but one state, Maine, have reporting deadlines of May 31, though she says what producers will be responsible for reporting varies by state. Maine’s EPR is state-run and not PRO-run. California has not officially finalized its EPR rulemaking.
Defining the Producer Hierarchy
One of the biggest questions Carney says Measure to Improve gets with EPRs is who a producer is and where those charges fall.
“The definition of a producer varies by state,” she says. “And there’s usually a hierarchy. So, if no one meets that criteria, then it’s the next person, and so on and so forth. But typically across states, the brand owner is the top of that hierarchy.”
And as many retailers use private-label packaging, the responsibility would also vary by state.
“I encourage everyone to look into this further, but for the most part, the retailer who owns the private brand would be the one responsible, not the grower,” she says. “But obviously, if the grower owned the brand, that would probably be their responsibility.”
Most of the focus with EPRs stems from plastic packaging, Carney says, though some states have additional regulations. This can make it challenging for growers selling into multiple states with EPRs.
“It varies by state — what packaging is and is not covered changes,” she says. “So, whether or not it’s just consumer packaging, or if it also includes that B2B or transport packaging, is just going to vary. In California, for the most part, transport packaging is included; shrink wrap, corner boards — all of that is going to be included in California. That’s largely the same case for Oregon, but it’s a case-by-case, state-by-state basis.”
Risk of Retroactive Fees
Carney says that it’s important for growers selling into EPR states, not just growing in them, to understand whether the products sold fall under these regulations. While there are some volume thresholds, she says growers already exceeding the thresholds but who don’t comply could face costly fines retroactive to the start of the EPR in that state.
“Let’s say you were unaware of EPR, and a couple of years from now, you become aware of that, and then you realize you needed to comply, and you have met the threshold every year since then, and you would need to pay retroactive fees back,” she says.
Driving Sustainability Through Data
While this all sounds scary, Carney says it’s important to understand the point of EPRs, which is to incentivize more sustainable design and materials.
“The fee rates are based off of the amount that you’re sending but also the material type,” she says. “For example, in some states for a recyclable film plastic, the fees might be half as much compared to a nonrecyclable film plastic. So, it is trying to incentivize moving in that direction. If you are growing into a certain state, or selling more, or whatever that might look like for a company, choosing more sustainable options is going to benefit them.”
Carney says that while EPRs may be newer to many fresh produce growers, greenhouse gas emission tracking is not. However, she says they’re both part of a growing trend of interest from both consumers and retailers.
“This is an area where sustainability is not going away,” she says. “These topics are not going away. They’re here to stay, and they’ve been very consistent. Both things really require a lot of data and information in order to make informed decisions on either one.”
Carney says that while retailers have asked for greenhouse gas reporting and that has driven some of the work, there are also increased regulations around greenhouse gases in different states, so it’s important for growers to have solutions to help track both EPRs and greenhouse gases.
“We aim to help build systems so that organizations can measure and use that information to improve themselves,” she says. “We know that there are different targets and goal posts, if you will, and once organizations have that information, they’re so well equipped to then move forward and do what makes the most sense for them.”
