Packaging charges double for retailers

Retailers are facing a more than £100m increase in packaging costs this year after the average price of plastic Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs) more than doubled, according to the British Retail Consortium (BRC).

The average price per tonne of plastic PRNs has risen from around £180 in 2025 to more than £370 in 2026, according to BRC analysis.

Packaging Costs Increase

The trade body said the increase will add a little over £100m to retailers’ total plastic PRN bill, warning that the extra costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers.

The BRC is calling on the Government to phase out the PRN system and incorporate it into the £1.5bn-a-year Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme.

The organisation argues that the current system leaves retailers facing three overlapping packaging costs through PRNs, the Plastic Packaging Tax and EPR.

Call for Reform

“The Packaging Recovery Note system is outdated, inefficient, and completely unnecessary,” said BRC director of food and sustainability Andrew Opie.

“Rather than charging retailers – and ultimately consumers – three separate times on the packaging they use, government should streamline this process and run recycling through its flagship EPR scheme.”

This would allow the government to save businesses and households £100m, without compromising the UK’s recycling efforts.

The BRC also argues that EPR funds must be ringfenced, guaranteeing that all money raised is used by local councils to create and operate a world-class recycling system.

Impact on Consumers

As the costs of packaging continue to rise, it’s likely that consumers will eventually bear the brunt of these increases, potentially leading to higher prices for goods.

However, if the government were to simplify the system by folding PRNs into a single EPR framework, it could help mitigate these costs and make recycling more efficient.

For now, retailers will have to absorb the increased costs, which could impact their bottom line and potentially lead to higher prices for consumers.

The BRC will likely continue to push for reform, arguing that a more streamlined system would benefit both businesses and households.

The existing system’s inefficiencies are further highlighted by the fact that retailers are currently facing multiple, overlapping costs associated with packaging waste.

This complexity can lead to confusion and inefficiency, making it more challenging for retailers to handle the system and for the government to effectively manage packaging waste.

A simplified system, on the other hand, would allow for more transparency and accountability, enabling the government to better track and manage packaging waste.

Furthermore, incorporating PRNs into the EPR scheme would enable the government to take a more holistic approach to managing packaging waste, considering the entire lifecycle of packaging materials.

This could involve implementing measures to reduce packaging waste at the source, increasing recycling rates, and promoting the use of sustainable packaging materials.

By streamlining the system and reducing unnecessary costs, the government can help create a more sustainable and efficient packaging waste management system, ultimately benefiting both businesses and consumers.

The BRC‘s call for reform is likely to resonate with retailers and consumers alike, as the current system’s inefficiencies and complexities are becoming increasingly apparent.

As the government considers the BRC‘s proposals, it will be essential to weigh the potential benefits of reform against the potential challenges and complexities involved in implementing a new system.

Ultimately, the goal of creating a more efficient and sustainable packaging waste management system will require collaboration and cooperation between government, retailers, and consumers.