中文The UK’s Packaging Recovery Note system is facing fresh fire from the retail sector, with the British Retail Consortium warning that costs are spiralling out of control. In an analysis of the current PRN scheme, the BRC found that the average price per tonne for plastic PRNs has doubled from around 180 pounds in 2025 to over 370 pounds in 2026, pushing the retail industry’s total plastic PRN bill up by a little over 100 million pounds in a single year.
PRNs were introduced in 1997 with the aim of proving that packaging waste has been recovered and recycled. Under the system, producers buy notes that fund recycling activity. But the BRC describes the framework as now outdated, amid a wave of new packaging regulations, and argues that retailers are being charged multiple times for essentially the same packaging through three overlapping costs, the Plastic Packaging Tax, the PRN system, and the government’s new 1.5 billion pound-a-year Extended Producer Responsibility scheme.
The consequence, the BRC says, is that retailers often end up paying three separate charges on the packaging they use. With household budgets already squeezed, the consortium warns that the extra 100 million pounds in PRN costs will inevitably filter through to consumers. Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability at the BRC, was blunt in his assessment. ‘The Packaging Recovery Note system is outdated, inefficient, and completely unnecessary,’ he said, calling on government to immediately phase out PRNs and roll the function into the EPR framework.
Opie also urged that EPR funds be ringfenced, ‘guaranteeing that all money raised is used by local councils to create and operate a world class recycling system that collects and processes as much recyclable material as possible.’ The BRC’s membership spans more than 200 major retailers, including physical stores, multichannel operators and pureplay online businesses, along with thousands of smaller independent retailers through affiliated trade associations.
The criticism arrives against a backdrop of wider scrutiny of the recycling-note market. A number of frauds have been reported involving PRNs and their electronic equivalents, prompting questions about the integrity of a system that ultimately shapes how much包装 producers pay. A DEFRA spokesperson told Printweek that the government is committed to supporting the recycling sector by stamping out fraud and increasing recycling rates, and is working closely with businesses to improve the current packaging waste recycling note system.
For printers and converters, the PRN debate is not abstract. Packaging producers sit downstream of these policy choices, and the cost structures that retailers and brands face feed back into specification decisions, material selection and the economics of recycled content. A streamlined system that consolidates charges under EPR could, in the BRC’s framing, save businesses and households 100 million pounds without weakening recycling outcomes.
Whether government acts quickly remains uncertain. But the intervention signals growing political discomfort with a quarter-century-old mechanism that many now view as a relic, and it places packaging waste policy squarely in the spotlight as the UK’s EPR regime beds in.
Source: Based on reporting from Printweek.
To understand the BRC’s frustration, it helps to see how the PRN market actually works. Producers buy Packaging Recovery Notes to evidence that a corresponding tonnage of packaging waste has been recovered and recycled, with values set by supply and demand rather than a fixed price. That design has always been volatile, and periods of note shortages have driven sharp price spikes that land unpredictably on the businesses obligated to comply.
The arrival of the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, expected to raise around 1.5 billion pounds a year, was meant to rationalise the landscape, but the overlapping PRN charges have persisted, layering cost on cost. The BRC argues this duplication is inefficient and regressive, ultimately paid by consumers already stretched by inflation. Fraud scandals involving fake or double-counted notes have further undermined confidence in a system meant to fund real recycling.
For printers and converters, the debate is not academic. Packaging specifiers feel the downstream effect of recycling costs in material choices and customer pricing, and policy uncertainty complicates long-range planning. A consolidated EPR framework with ringfenced funds, as the BRC proposes, could deliver more recycling per pound and remove a layer of administrative overhead. Whether government moves quickly remains uncertain, but the intervention signals growing political discomfort with a quarter-century-old mechanism, placing packaging waste policy squarely in the spotlight as the UK’s new producer-responsibility regime beds in.
Smaller print businesses feel the PRN squeeze most acutely. Large retailers can absorb or pass through a 100 million pound industry-wide bill, but a regional carton or flexibles printer that buys notes as part of its packaging spend has far less cushion, and volatility makes budgeting difficult when prices can double in a single year. That unpredictability is itself a hidden tax on investment.
Political appetite for reform is real but contested. Treasury departments prize the EPR framework’s revenue, while industry argues consolidation reduces administrative overhead and fraud exposure. The fraud cases that have dogged the PRN market only strengthen the case for a single, auditable system. Whatever the outcome, printers should engage now, because the shape of the successor regime will determine compliance costs for years. Trade bodies are likely to press for ringfenced EPR funds and clearer price signals, and the BRC’s intervention gives that campaign fresh momentum ahead of the next spending cycle.
