Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) could be one of the most effective ways to reduce packaging waste in Finland. Finland generates enormous amounts of packaging waste every year. In 2024, only 26.9% of plastic packaging waste was recycled.
This isn’t a sorting problem, it’s a design problem.
We back Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) because it makes brands pay for waste and pushes us towards a circular economy.
Better economics, better design = less junk.
The most effective way to reduce waste is to strengthen Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Finland.
We’ve all experienced it.
- A moisturiser packaged in a tub 3x larger than the product itself.
- A tiny product packed in a giant box.
- A pack of supermarket snacks only 25% full.
We’re told to rinse, sort, separate and recycle harder. We think that’s unfair.
Finland generates enormous amounts of packaging waste every year, yet only 26.9% of plastic packaging waste was recycled in 2024, one of the lowest recycling rates in the EU.
If a product is designed to create unnecessary waste, the burden shouldn’t sit mostly with households. It should sit with the brands that designed it that way.
The real problem: the true cost of waste isn’t priced in
Most businesses are built to optimise for profit. That’s not evil, it’s how incentives work.
But when waste and pollution aren’t properly priced (much like CO₂), bad design stays cheap:
- Products fail early.
- Packaging is oversized.
- Materials are mixed and hard to recover.
- Parts can’t be repaired or replaced.
- Retail formats are built to win on the shelf, not reduce waste.
The cost gets pushed onto everyone else: households, taxpayers, government and the environment.
That’s exactly why we support EPR: it starts putting the cost of bad design back where it belongs.
But EPR isn’t just about fees, it’s a practical lever for driving a shift towards a circular economy, where materials are kept in use longer, waste is designed out, and responsibility follows the product lifecycle.
The solution: EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility)
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is the simplest way to rebalance that.
In plain English: if a brand puts a product into the market, that brand should help pay for the system that manages it.
Finland already has an EPR system for packaging, but there’s still room to strengthen the incentives for brands to design better products and packaging.
It’s blunt, but it has to be. It doesn’t depend on every brand suddenly becoming virtuous. It changes the economics.
And when the economics change, design changes.
How EPR changes packaging design in practice
This is the bit that matters most.
A strong EPR policy in Finland, especially one with fee settings that reward better design, can push brands to rethink decisions they currently make for shelf appeal, short-term margin or convenience.
Finland has already introduced eco-modulated packaging recycling fees, meaning packaging that is easier to recycle can attract lower fees than packaging that is more difficult to recycle.
If waste-heavy formats cost more, refillable and repairable systems become more commercially attractive.
That’s the point of EPR: not just paying for waste after the fact, but improving design decisions upstream.
Where Dilute fits in
At Dilute, this is already how we approach product design. Why? Because we started Dilute to reduce unnecessary everyday waste, not simply to put another cleaning product on the market.
We’re not waiting for policy or economics to tell us waste matters. We build for waste reduction by default.
In other words, we design with circular economy principles in mind, keeping materials in use longer, reducing single-use packaging, and finding ways to minimise waste at every stage.
That shows up in practical choices. Take our cleaning products as an example:
- Product size: One small, water-soluble paper sachet makes 650 ml of ready-to-use cleaning solution.
- Product system: All our spray bottles are refillable.
- Bottle design: Our durable bottles are designed to be reused rather than thrown away after each use.
- Spray head design: We use metal-free, recyclable spray heads.
- Purchasing frequency: We encourage customers to stock up on refills, helping reduce the need for frequent deliveries and additional shipping packaging.
We’re not perfect, but our design philosophy is that waste is a design flaw, and we’re always looking for ways to improve.
Why we’re pushing for stronger EPR in Finland
We hate waste. Part of this means supporting policy changes that help prevent it.
The EU is already reforming packaging regulations. The new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which started applying on 12 August 2026, aims to reduce packaging waste, improve packaging design and recyclability, and encourage reuse.
We support this direction, particularly policies that make better design decisions more attractive for businesses from the very beginning.
Because this is a systems problem, not just a product problem.
The bottom line
Most people can spot bad packaging design in two seconds.
Too much plastic. Too much box. Short product life.
The frustrating part is that the system often rewards it, then tells us to clean it up.
EPR is our preferred approach because it flips that logic and helps shift Finland from a linear take-make-dispose system towards a true circular economy, where materials stay in productive use longer and fewer resources are wasted.
If a brand creates more junk, it should carry more responsibility.
If a brand designs better, it should be rewarded.
That’s how we get better products, better packaging and less waste in Finland. Not by asking people to recycle harder.
By forcing brands to design better.
– Max, Founder
Interested in the details? We recommend reading Finnish Packaging Recycling Rinki’s guide to producer responsibility and the European Commission’s information on packaging waste regulations.
Share:
How to Remove Limescale from Your Bathroom (Without All the Scrubbing)
How Often Should You Clean The Bathroom?