The campaign, Keep Packaging Recycling Working, comes amid growing calls from food and drink manufacturers and retailers to scrap PRNs ahead of the Budget.
According to reporting from the Grocer, trade associations including the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) have proposed incorporating the system into the wider Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, arguing that PRNs place unnecessary cost burdens on businesses and consumers while failing to improve the UK’s recycling rates.
Critics have also described PRNs as a “packaging tax” or “plastic tax”, arguing that the same materials face multiple charges.
However, the PSF, which represents 13 of the UK’s 15 existing packaging compliance scheme operators, said the current system had helped the UK consistently meet its statutory packaging recycling targets for three decades.
It said PRNs provide a responsive mechanism for supporting recycling businesses, encouraging investment in infrastructure and enabling producers to meet their environmental obligations.
George Atkinson, Chair of the PSF, said: “To clarify, those calling PRNs a plastic ‘tax’ are overlooking what they actually do and the materials the system ensures environmentally-positive outcomes for. PRNs are recycling evidence, not a tax paid into the Exchequer.
“The money flows into the recycling system through accredited reprocessors and exporters and helps make the economics of recycling work.”
“Removing PRNs without a viable alternative in place risks destabilising financial flows into the waste management industry, undermining business and investor confidence and putting critical national infrastructure at risk.”
The forum also pointed to £95 million in PRN revenue last year being committed to new recycling infrastructure and capacity across the UK.
‘Scrapping PRNs will not remove costs’
The calls came after Defra announced new measures to reduce packaging recycling obligations for plastic, steel and wood in 2026, following a shortage of PRNs.
While acknowledging that improvements are needed, the forum argued that these could be delivered without dismantling the existing system, which it said would be expensive for the government to replace.
Atkinson added: “There is a very big difference between improving a system and abolishing it before anybody has demonstrated how its essential functions will be replaced, how different materials would be supported when markets are weak and how value for money for those obligated would be assured.
“It’s also important to note that scrapping PRNs will not remove costs from the system for producers. PRNs power the proven recycling of packaging that’s otherwise uneconomical to recycle.
“Without them the challenge of recycling enough packaging waste to meet national targets would remain, with a fixed cost system likely to cost producers more than one where the financial stimulus can alter according the market need”.
Register for free to comment