In the past, the cost equation for packaging was fairly basic: Materials and labor were the major factors determining total packaging costs. More sophisticated analyses might have looked at total systems costs related to cube and transportation logistics. Steady energy prices meant that costs were relatively easy to predict, so there was not a lot of economic pressure to consider the efficiency of materials or even energy use. However, as the sustainable packaging momentum grows, it is clear that synergistic trends are developing, altering the landscape that defines cost and environmental performance.

This winter, the price of oil may well exceed $100 per barrel. The increase in energy and materials prices and the consequent marketplace reactions, suggest a growing awareness that our natural resources are limited. This poses numerous challenges and many opportunities,

Every niche in the economy is influenced by energy prices. The burden on municipalities is higher than ever, as increasing transportation costs equal higher costs for waste management and hauling. Localities and states are re-examining costs to save by being more efficient or offsetting expenses.

In 1990, Swedish environmental economist Thomas Lindhqvist coined the term, “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).” As a 2007 California Waste Management Board report explains, “Extended producer responsibility is a policy to promote total life-cycle environmental improvements of product systems by extending the responsibilities of the manufacturer of the product to various parts of the product's life cycle, and especially to the takeback, recovery and final disposal of the product.”

For packaging, this policy in practice shifts the end-of-life costs of collecting, sorting and managing post-consumer packaging costs typically born by localities to the producers of packaged goods. Since the early 1990s, this policy has taken a number of forms in Europe. The U.K. has instituted shared producer responsibility, where each member of the supply chain plays a role in financing collection and recovery initiatives. Other countries have embraced direct producer responsibility, where Green Dot fees are levied on brand owners based on the amount, type and recyclability of the packaging sold in a country to fund organizations like France's Eco-Emballages or Germany's Duales System Deutschland (DSD). Closer to home, Canada has introduced a form of producer responsibility through Blue Box fees in Ontario and in Quebec. EPR, as used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, refers to the extended responsibility that includes consumers and disposers.

While the principle driver to EPR legislation in Europe was a combination of limited landfill space and a strong environmental ethic, in the U.S. it may be that rising energy and transportation prices—in combination with growing environmental awareness and the prospect of carbon taxation—cause states and localities to factor waste into the cost calculation for packaging.