Richmond-based business warns EPR Scheme creating ‘Unfair Market’ as glass sales plunge £400k
One Water – a leading ethical water brand based in Richmond UK, has warned that the government’s new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations are placing a ‘disproportionate burden’ on compliant companies, after revealing the scheme will cost the firm around £140,000 in 2025 and has already contributed to a £400,000 loss in glass product sales.
One Water sells spring water in a variety of formats to supermarkets, wholesale and catering and the travel sector, and is the official water partner of Brentford FC. With each product sold, a donation is made to The One Foundation to fund clean water projects around the world. Their glass range was widely used in hospitality venues in the UK, however the new regulations have given One Water no option but to increase glass product prices and this has meant that customers have been dropping in their droves.
One Water’s founder Duncan Goose believes that the EPR bill was broadly in line with expectations after months of preparation, but criticised the surprise addition of a 4% impairment charge to cover debts from non-compliant businesses, as well as an additional scheme administration fee, despite having already paid to register with the Environment Agency.
The firm said the financial impact of EPR has forced a review of operating costs. While it has ruled out cutting support to its charity partner, The One Foundation, it must now consider reducing its use of glass packaging and recovering some costs through customer price increases. Thus far, the firm has been hit by £400,000 in lost sales, mostly through hotels, bars and restaurants.
Duncan Goose says, “We have had to review our operating costs, and we’re adamant that we won’t cut support to our charity partner, The One Foundation. We will have to rethink what we do with our glass packaging going forward, and monitor our price increases – we’ve already had to increase the costs. Larger companies may be better equipped to absorb these costs, but we’re competing against brands that have not yet registered or submitted data, creating a highly distorted and unfair market. We need better levels of enforcement – beyond a reporting hotline and an impairment charge, there is not much more being done to ensure that we have a level playing field here.”
Under previous rules, customers covered 48% of waste management fees.
Duncan Goose wants the UK to rethink how it looks at Deposit Return Schemes (DRS) once more.
“Including glass within DRS would remove a major distortion. Drinks containers included within the future DRS scheme are exempt from EPR, which incentivises a switch from glass to plastic on cost grounds – undermining sustainability goals. EPR in its current form places a disproportionate burden on responsible, compliant businesses, while allowing non-compliance to distort the market. Effective enforcement and a more coherent national strategy could ensure the scheme achieves its intended environmental goals without penalising those who are playing by the rules.”