Legal Challenge to Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

A legal challenge has been initiated by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) against the State of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, contests the constitutionality of the law, which is fundamentally aligned with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning responsible consumption, sustainable communities, and environmental protection.

The Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act: A Framework for Sustainable Production and Consumption

Core Objectives and Alignment with SDG 12

The 2021 Act establishes an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework, a key policy tool for achieving SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production. The law aims to overhaul the state’s recycling system by shifting the financial and operational responsibility for end-of-life packaging management from municipalities and taxpayers to the producers and distributors of those products.

• Producer Responsibility: The law mandates that companies selling products in Oregon pay fees based on the weight and recyclability of their packaging. This “polluter pays” principle directly supports SDG Target 12.4, which calls for the environmentally sound management of all wastes throughout their life cycle.
• Incentivizing Sustainable Design: By imposing lower fees on lighter, reusable, and more easily recyclable packaging, the law encourages producers to innovate and adopt more sustainable materials. This directly contributes to SDG Target 12.5, which aims to substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse.
• Systemic Improvement: Revenue from the fees is designated for investment in Oregon’s recycling infrastructure, creating a more efficient and effective system that supports a circular economy.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Development

The Act’s influence extends beyond production and consumption patterns, impacting other critical SDGs.

• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): By reducing the volume of waste sent to landfills and alleviating the financial burden on municipal waste services, the law helps build more resilient and sustainable communities, in line with SDG Target 11.6.
• SDG 14 (Life Below Water) & SDG 15 (Life on Land): A primary goal of reducing plastic waste is to mitigate its harmful effects on marine and terrestrial ecosystems, directly supporting the conservation objectives of these goals.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The law’s implementation model relies on a partnership between the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), local governments, and a designated Producer Responsibility Organization—the Circular Action Alliance (CAA). This multi-stakeholder approach is central to the ethos of SDG 17.

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors’ Lawsuit

Grounds for the Legal Challenge

The NAW, representing an $8.2 trillion industry, argues that the law is unconstitutional and places an undue burden on its members. The lawsuit names the Oregon DEQ, the Environmental Quality Commission, and the state Attorney General as defendants.

1. Unconstitutional Delegation of Authority: The central claim is that the law improperly delegates regulatory power, including fee-setting and collection, to a private, non-profit entity—the Circular Action Alliance—rather than a state agency.
2. Violation of Due Process: The lawsuit alleges that the fee-setting methodology used by the CAA has not been transparent or subject to public rulemaking, denying companies the opportunity to challenge the fees.
3. Discrimination and Unfair Burden: The NAW contends that the law unfairly targets distributors, who have little to no control over packaging design decisions, and discriminates against out-of-state producers.

The Role of the Circular Action Alliance (CAA)

The CAA is a non-profit organization formed in 2022 by twenty multinational corporations, including Amazon, Coca-Cola, and Nestle. It was selected by Oregon to manage the EPR program. Its responsibilities include setting and collecting fees across 60 material categories and collaborating on investments to improve the state’s recycling infrastructure. The lawsuit brings this model of public-private partnership, crucial for SDG 17, into question.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Future Implications

Arguments from Proponents of the Law

State Senator Janeen Sollman, a co-sponsor of the bill, stated that the law is designed to create fairness by ensuring that producers who generate packaging waste bear the cost of its disposal, rather than Oregon residents and small businesses. Proponents frame the lawsuit as an attempt by a “multi-trillion-dollar industry” to protect profits at the expense of Oregon’s progress toward a cleaner and more sustainable future, undermining the state’s commitment to the SDGs.

Arguments from the Wholesaler-Distributors

Eric Hoplin, President and CEO of the NAW, argued that the law fails to create a uniform and transparent system, instead shifting the burden to parts of the supply chain with minimal control over packaging. The association claims that for many small and medium-sized businesses, the fees were “unexpected and unexpectedly high,” despite an exemption in the law for producers with gross revenue of $5 million or less.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• The article’s central theme is the “Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act,” a law designed to overhaul how packaging waste is managed. This directly aligns with SDG 12, which focuses on sustainable consumption and production patterns. The law’s mechanism of charging fees based on packaging weight and recyclability is a clear attempt to enforce the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), making producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, particularly the waste they generate. The article states the law encourages producers “to choose lighter, more sustainable materials.”

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The law addresses municipal waste management, a key component of sustainable cities. The article explains that the costs of disposing of packaging are “currently borne by the businesses and Oregonians who have to pay for the garbage.” By shifting this financial burden and investing the collected fees to “improve Oregon’s recycling infrastructure,” the law aims to create a more sustainable and equitable waste management system within Oregon’s communities.

SDG 14: Life Below Water

• The law is explicitly named the “Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act.” While the article focuses on the financial and legal aspects, the underlying goal of modernizing plastic recycling is to reduce plastic waste. Reducing plastic pollution on land is critical to preventing it from entering waterways and oceans, thereby addressing the issue of marine debris, a primary concern of SDG 14.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• The implementation of the law showcases a multi-stakeholder partnership. It involves the Oregon state government (Department of Environmental Quality), a private non-profit entity (the Circular Action Alliance or CAA), which itself was formed by “Twenty multinational corporations in the food, beverage, retail and consumer goods industries,” and local governments. The article highlights this complex public-private partnership model, which is essential for achieving large-scale sustainability goals. The lawsuit filed by the “National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors” also underscores the challenges and dynamics within such partnerships.

Specific Targets Identified

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

1. Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.
   • The article details how the Oregon law directly supports this target. It creates financial incentives for companies to reduce waste at the source. The article notes, “Products with less packaging and with reusable packaging carry lower fees than goods packaged in bulky plastics and single-use materials.” This encourages prevention and reduction. Furthermore, the entire act is designed to create “statewide standards for what can and cannot be recycled” and to fund improvements in “Oregon’s recycling infrastructure,” directly promoting recycling.
2. Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
   • The law establishes a system where producers must “cover some of the end-of-life costs for disposing of their packaging.” This is a mechanism for achieving environmentally sound management of packaging waste throughout its life cycle, as it holds the originators of the waste accountable.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

1. Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
   • The article focuses entirely on improving municipal waste management. It highlights that before the law, “Oregon’s residential customers and small businesses are bearing the greatest burden of the rising cost of waste.” The law aims to reduce this burden and improve the system’s efficiency and sustainability, directly addressing the waste management aspect of this target.

SDG 14: Life Below Water

1. Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.
   • The “Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act” is a land-based initiative aimed at controlling a primary source of marine debris: plastic packaging. By creating a more robust system for recycling and incentivizing the reduction of plastic use, the law contributes directly to preventing plastic waste from polluting the environment and, eventually, the oceans.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.
   • The article describes the operational structure of the law’s implementation, which is a clear example of a public-private partnership. The state’s Environmental Quality Department works with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), a “nonprofit based in Washington, D.C.” formed by major corporations, which “is in charge of setting and collecting fees.” This collaboration between government and the private sector to achieve a public policy goal is the essence of Target 17.17.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

For Targets 11.6 and 12.5

• Amount of revenue collected from packaging fees: The article mentions that “manufacturers received their first bills” and that fees are set for “60 different material categories.” Tracking this revenue is a direct indicator of the program’s implementation and scale.
• Changes in packaging materials used by producers: Since fees are “based on the weight and recyclability of the material,” monitoring shifts in the market toward lighter, reusable, or more easily recyclable packaging would be a key indicator of the law’s success in incentivizing waste reduction.
• Level of investment in recycling infrastructure: The article states that revenue from fees must be used for “projects that improve Oregon’s recycling infrastructure.” The amount of money invested and the number of new or upgraded facilities are measurable indicators of progress.
• Reduction in disposal costs for municipalities and citizens: A primary goal is to shift costs so that producers pay more, “not Oregonians.” An indicator would be the change in the percentage of waste management costs covered by producer fees versus municipal budgets or residential waste bills.

For Target 14.1

• Establishment of statewide recycling standards: The article mentions the law was meant to “create statewide standards for what can and cannot be recycled.” The successful implementation and enforcement of these standards is an indicator of improved management of plastic waste streams.

For Target 17.17

• Functioning of the public-private partnership: The operational status of the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) in setting and collecting fees as described in the article serves as an indicator of the partnership’s activity. The ongoing lawsuit also serves as an indicator of the challenges and conflicts within this multi-stakeholder arrangement.

SDG Analysis Summary

Source: oregonlive.com