Beyondly Claims Fibre-Based Composite Packaging Producers May Have Overpaid Millions Under UK pEPR Scheme

Updated on June 17, 2026 • 6 min read

A new analysis by compliance scheme Beyondly is raising fresh questions over the accuracy of the UK’s Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) fee structure, suggesting that producers of fibre-based composite (FBC) packaging may have been charged significantly more than necessary.

According to the report, brands using packaging formats such as liquid cartons, sandwich wrappers and ready-meal containers could have collectively overpaid between £6.3 million and £13.7 million in disposal fees during the first year of the scheme.

Commissioned by ACE UK (The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment), the findings have been submitted to PackUK alongside recommendations for an urgent review of future fee calculations.

Why the Fees Could Be Wrong

At the centre of the dispute is the £461 per tonne pEPR fee currently applied to FBC packaging.

Beyondly’s review argues that this figure is based on assumptions that materially overestimate the costs local authorities incur when collecting FBC waste.

Under the current methodology:

• FBC collection costs are estimated at £509 per tonne.
• Paper and cardboard collection costs are estimated at £264 per tonne.

The researchers question how two packaging categories with broadly similar fibre characteristics could generate such vastly different collection costs.

Their conclusion: the model may be allocating too much collection cost to FBC packaging.

Two Assumptions Driving the Overcharge

The report identifies two major factors behind the inflated calculations.

1. Incorrect Packaging Mix

The existing model appears to assume that a larger proportion of FBC waste consists of liquid beverage cartons, which typically occupy more space during collection.

However, Beyondly argues that non-liquid FBC formats make up a greater share of the market than currently assumed.

2. Bulk Density Miscalculations

The model also treats non-liquid FBC packaging as having similar bulk density to conventional paper and card waste dominated by corrugated cardboard boxes.

Researchers argue this comparison is inappropriate because many FBC formats consist of much lighter retail packaging.

Since collection costs are allocated largely by volume rather than weight, these assumptions increase the apparent space occupied by FBC waste and therefore inflate disposal charges.

Potential Savings Could Reach £92 Per Tonne

Using alternative market data and revised density assumptions, Beyondly estimates that the FBC fee should be reduced by:

• £34 per tonne under conservative assumptions.
• Up to £92 per tonne under broader revisions.

Applied across industry payments, this translates into potential overpayments of:

• £6.3 million, at the lower end.
• £13.7 million, under the higher estimate.

Additional Issues Identified

The review highlights several other factors that may further distort disposal fees.

Consumer Compaction Assumptions

Current calculations assume liquid cartons are collected without being flattened.

In reality:

• Consumers often compress cartons before disposal.
• Collection vehicles further compact waste during transport.

Ignoring these practices could significantly exaggerate the actual collection volume associated with FBC packaging.

Misreporting Across Packaging Categories

The report also points to widespread confusion between:

• Fibre-based composites, and
• Conventional paper and cardboard packaging.

Because many of these materials appear visually similar, inaccurate reporting may have influenced the fee-setting process itself.

Beyondly argues that improving reporting accuracy is essential if future fees are to reflect real-world waste management costs.

Industry Calls for Review

Charlotte Davies, Senior Consultant for Resource Efficiency and Circularity at Beyondly, said the current charging structure appears disproportionate.

She noted that collection costs represent nearly two-thirds of FBC waste-management expenses, meaning any inaccuracies in volume assumptions can significantly distort final fees.

ACE UK echoed those concerns.

Ben Powell, Head of External Affairs at ACE UK, said:

“It is clearly implausible to charge nearly twice as much for local authorities to collect a tonne of FBC than a tonne of paper and card.”

He added that the discrepancy may already have cost brands millions of pounds unnecessarily.

🔒 Content Transparency & Editorial Integrity

This article is developed based on real engineering experience, machine testing data, and practical production knowledge from Jota Machinery’s work in advanced composite manufacturing.

All technical explanations—including material structure, processing methods, and performance characteristics—are reviewed and verified by our engineering team to ensure accuracy and real-world relevance.

To improve clarity and structure, AI-assisted tools may have been used during content organization and language refinement. However:

• All key technical insights originate from first-hand industrial experience
• All data and claims are manually reviewed and validated
• The content is created with the primary goal of educating engineers, manufacturers, and buyers

We do not publish content solely for search ranking purposes. Every article is designed to provide practical, experience-based value to professionals in the composite materials industry.

Editorial Perspective

Janicki’s announcement reflects a broader shift occurring throughout the aerospace supply chain.

For years, the composites industry focused heavily on innovation—developing lighter materials, larger tooling systems and increasingly automated manufacturing processes.

Today, a different challenge is emerging:

Industrial capacity.

Aircraft production rates are climbing. Defense budgets continue to prioritize advanced platforms. Space programs require increasingly sophisticated structures. Yet many suppliers face bottlenecks created by limited manufacturing footprints and workforce constraints.

Large-scale investments such as Janicki’s Montana campus suggest that the industry’s next competitive advantage may not simply be technology leadership, but the ability to manufacture advanced components reliably and at scale.

Outlook

As aerospace and defense programs move into higher production phases, suppliers capable of combining advanced composites expertise, machining capability and domestic manufacturing capacity are likely to play a larger role in the industry’s future.

Janicki’s $800 million investment signals confidence that demand for high-performance structures will continue to grow throughout the next decade.

If completed as planned, the Great Falls campus will not only transform Janicki’s manufacturing footprint but could also establish Montana as an increasingly important center for next-generation aerospace production in the United States.