What happened? 

This June, the Circular Policy Leadership Network (CIRCLE) Source Reduction Summit convened producer, supplier, and converter teams building individual source reduction plans for a two-day working session.  

Who is CIRCLE? 

CIRCLE is a neutral convening platform for circularity that helps policymakers, NGOs, and industry leaders navigate circular packaging policy. The group is formerly known as the Ocean Plastic Leadership Network (OPLN) and previously brought environmental NGOs and industry together in the North Atlantic Ocean gyre to mobilize against plastic waste, as well as participated in the Global Plastics Treaty dialogues.

The new directive of CIRCLE is to be non-partisan, neutral, and practical; this event embodied their mission and provided the following insights.

Why are producers meeting to work on source reduction? 

Right now, producers putting products into the state of California are facing a deadline of August 1 for submitting individual source reduction plans (ISRPs) under California’s landmark EPR law, SB 54. To support producers as they develop these plans, the event aimed to provide lightbulb moments on EPR and California’s specific source reduction requirements producers are facing for the next 8 years.  

• EPR is a “hot potato” within enterprises, but creating a practical, credible source reduction plan requires teamwork, not passing it along to burn the next hands.  

• Program nascency is impacting everyone; there’s a clear signal from the PRO that good faith efforts matter and opportunities for iteration are available.  

• Source reduction is both a compliance obligation and a strategic opportunity for cost, innovation, and storytelling; waiting for perfect clarity is not an option.  

Let’s dive into these and more key takeaways from the event that SPC members can use to produce their plans. Here’s what I learned.

Takeaway 1: Plastic source reduction is no longer abstract. Pick a path and move.

Right now, no one expects producers to create flawless plans for source reduction. Rather, plans should serve as future-looking forecasts of what is feasible moving forward, with room to refine over time as data improves.  

To build these plans, producers can utilize the five source reduction pathways outlined in SB 54 in their ISRPs:  

1. Reuse and Refill 
2. Elimination 
3. Switching to Alternative, Non-Plastic Materials  
4. Right-sizing, Concentrating, Lightweighting, and Shifting to Bulk Packaging 
5. PCR Content as Alternative Compliance 

Producers do not need to use every pathway in their ISRPs, but credible and achievable efforts will likely include more than one pathway.  

Why it matters: 

Waiting for certainty increases your risk. Momentum, documentation, and learning-by-doing have to inform strategies for an ISRP that’s ready by the August 1, 2026 deadline.  

Takeaway 2: Not all source reduction pathways are equal  

Questions remain about the five different pathways and their effectiveness in reducing plastic by weight and component in packaging while maintaining the integrity of the packaging. Despite the questions, the SPC believes each pathway has its own strengths and weaknesses. Those explored at the event include:  

• Elimination can offer cost and material savings, but definitions remain complex as what counts as a component — i.e., adhesives, labels, liners, caps — is still murky. 

• Reuse and Refill are viable pathways, especially for transport packaging, reusable food serviceware in closed settings, or refillable household products, but success hinges on reverse logistics and consumer adoption.  

• Lightweighting is widely adopted among packaging professionals, and packages like water bottles has been pushed to an extreme. Looking elsewhere beyond PET bottles will be key to this source reduction pathway.  

• Concentration is reaching technical ceilings in some product categories and requires research to appropriately consider consumer health and safety. 

• Alternative materials introduce upstream and downstream constraints like manufacturing equipment, innovative new formats leading to shelf and retailer considerations, and could be tried with specific product lines before committing to entire categories.  

Why it matters: 

Tertiary packaging and non-food contact flexibles remain some of the most accessible opportunities for source reduction, as the pathways can be overwhelming when looking at primary packaging first. Companies must model the pathways holistically — looking at cost, compliance, consumer behavior, and operational reality — to find which part of their portfolios will be best suited for source reduction requirements.  

Takeaway 3: Success depends on designated governance and cross-functional alignment 

Producers are accountable for their own packaging portfolios, and EPR is not only a sustainability or packaging team issue. 

The producer responsibility organization (PRO) is providing the framework and structure for source reduction requirements in California, but the strategy remains in the hands of the producer. Successful source reduction strategy development and implementation require early and sustained coordination across: 

• R&D 

• Procurement, sourcing, and suppliers 

• Marketing  

• Legal and regulatory 

• Finance 

• Leadership 

If you need tools to build buy-in for source reduction and other sustainable packaging initiatives, use SPC’s resource and talking points.

Why it matters: 

Source reduction initiatives will fail if these projects are unclear on ownership, have misaligned priorities, and there’s a lack of internal knowledge. Technical feasibility is not the only roadblock; internal teams working together will drive source reduction forward.  

Takeaway 4: Business growth, transparent data, and public scrutiny underpin risks  

One recurring tension is that California’s EPR source reduction requirements don’t account for business growth. Producers, understandably, are wrestling with how to reduce material use while growing their businesses in a profit-driven system. 

Other uncertainties that the SPC has identified include:  

• Privacy: Producers must submit ISRPs to the PRO. Subsequently, the PRO is  required to share the plans with CalRecycle. Information submitted to the state is subject to disclosure under public records law.  Requests for keeping information exempt from public disclosure is an option, but uncertainty around approval is applying pressure. CalRecycle will make the determination.  

• Collective Action: This is a group exercise; the PRO is required to reduce 25% of plastic by 2032, not individual producers. Full participation by producers is the only way these goals are achievable; however bad actors and free riders are possible. 

• Repercussions: What happens when goals aren’t achieved? Market access, fines and fees, and other penalties are on the table, but ultimately the repercussions and realities are treading new territory.  

Why it matters: 

SB 54 is hailed as legislation that will completely transform the trajectory of plastic packaging, as California is the world’s fifth largest economy. At this point, the source reduction mandates are as much a communications and risk management exercise as a technical one for producers submitting ISRPs in such an impactful market.  

Progress over perfection at this point in planning source reduction 

Source reduction under EPR is not about finding the perfect pathway for every single plastic package or component. The practical goal for producers right now is to demonstrate compelling progress in a complex, evolving political and economic system.  

Producers that align internally, make moves on uncomplicated solutions, and document their decisions will be best positioned to adapt as policy, markets, and consumer expectations continue to shift towards adopting EPR laws for packaging with stringent targets and a hope for a future without plastic waste.