A Strategic Opportunity for Governments and Businesses.
by Vy Nguyen
The global race toward sustainability is being tested by a new wave of U.S. trade tariffs. With economic pressure rising and international relations shifting, both governments and businesses must rethink their strategies. Could this disruption actually become an opportunity for green innovation?
- The US tariff regime has introduced a 10% baseline tariff for most partners, 25% on steel and aluminium, and 145% on Chinese goods — directly raising manufacturing costs and disrupting global supply chains.
- 73% of Americans expect prices to rise under the tariff regime; plastic production costs alone could increase by 12–20% depending on supply chain adjustments.
- Government sustainability budgets are also under pressure — total tariff measures could escalate from $76 billion to $697 billion annually, forcing hard choices on public environmental spending.
- EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) systems offer governments a way to shift waste management costs to the private sector — freeing public budgets while maintaining environmental standards.
- For companies, EPR provides access to locally sourced recyclates, reducing dependency on imported raw materials now subject to tariffs — a concrete supply chain resilience strategy.
- 84% of consumers say poor environmental practices would alienate them from a brand — the business case for sustainability holds even under tariff pressure.
|
145% US tariff rate on Chinese goods — compared to 20% before the escalation |
12–20%
Projected increase in plastic production costs due to tariffs on imported raw materials |
84%
Consumers who say poor environmental practices would make them abandon a brand |
| $697Bn
Projected annual tariff cost burden — up from $76 billion before the regime escalated |
9.7%
Sustainability premium consumers are willing to pay, even amid inflation (PwC) |
13.2Mt EU plastic recycling capacity in 2023 — demonstrating EPR’s ability to build local supply |
Tariff Surge: What’s Changing Globally
In recent weeks, the U.S. has escalated its tariff regime, introducing a 10% baseline tariff for most trading partners while maintaining 25% duties on steel, aluminum, and other critical raw materials for manufacturing. While a 90-day pause has been offered to some nations, the trade war with China has intensified, with tariffs on Chinese goods surging from 20% to an alarming 145%. In retaliation, China has imposed tariffs on U.S. imports as well. (USA Today).
Meanwhile, the European Union has authorized countermeasures covering €21 billion worth of U.S. goods. However, it was agreed to delay the implementation of these measures until 14 July, mirroring the U.S.’s temporary pause (DW). Additionally, countries like Vietnam and Indonesia are actively negotiating with Washington to avoid further escalation, with Vietnam offering tariff relief on U.S. products in exchange for reciprocal treatment (USA Today).
Beyond Tariffs
The tariff escalation is not the only issue at hand. In addition to imposing tariffs, the Trump administration has taken several actions that significantly undermine sustainability efforts, both domestically and globally.
- The Trump administration has rolled back over 100 environmental regulations. Among the most significant changes were the weakening of carbon dioxide emission limits for power plants and vehicles, the removal of protections for wetlands, and the relaxation of mercury emission restrictions. Public lands were opened for oil and gas leasing, alongside reductions in wildlife protections and energy efficiency standards. (New York Times).
- The U.S. also formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement, which marked a significant retreat from global climate leadership. This move was accompanied by the halting of federal climate funding, including billions of dollars earmarked for energy and environmental projects (American Progress).
- The suspension of federal grants for clean energy initiatives also disrupted projects nationwide. This also created economic confusion at state and local levels, impeding the progress of sustainability projects (New York Times).
- Additionally, the attempt to eliminate stricter EPA vehicle emissions standards. If successful, this could significantly reduce the pressure on global manufacturers to develop environmentally friendly vehicles and invest in cleaner technologies, slowing down the transition to sustainable energy solutions (Earth Justice).
Government Budgets Under Pressure
The introduction of tariffs presents a significant concern for governments, especially when it comes to the potential regression of environmental regulations. As economic pressures mount, countries may be tempted to relax environmental standards or delay the implementation of climate-friendly reforms. This could be exacerbated by the economic toll on a country’s GDP, leading to restrictions on public spending budgets. It is projected that total tariff measures could increase from $76 billion a year to nearly $697 billion annually (PwC).
The Rising Cost of Manufacturing
This surge in tariffs has a broader impact beyond government budgets. For consumers and producers alike, these tariffs are expected to increase costs. In fact, 73% of Americans expect prices to surge under Trump’s tariffs (Reuters).
This is not a myth!
Industries that rely on imported raw materials, such as plastic manufacturing, are feeling the impact of these tariffs. For example, costs for plastic production could rise by 12-20% depending on supply chain adjustments (American Chemistry Council). Additionally, essential components like raw materials, packaging, and processing equipment often sourced from countries like China – are also becoming more expensive (Sterling Plastics).
Turning the Tide: How EPR Can Help Governments and Businesses Thrive
Despite the challenges posed by tariffs, there is a compelling opportunity for both governments and companies to leverage Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems to navigate this disruption.
EPR As A Government Solution
For governments, waste management is often one of the largest budget items, accounting for 20-50% of operational spending (IMF). EPR offers an attractive solution by shifting the responsibility of waste management from solely public authorities to a shared accountability model between producers and authorities.
This is especially critical in developing economies, where economic pressures and reduced foreign aid can limit public sector funding. Through EPR systems, governments can ease the burden of waste management, freeing up significant resources for other areas of public spending.
By involving the private sector in waste management, EPR creates a support mechanism that can help alleviate fiscal constraints. For governments, this means one of their largest expenditures is now shared with the private sector, which can foster more sustainable systems and reduce the strain on public budgets.
The New Business Case Under Tariffs
For companies, tariffs create a tough decision: relocating production to avoid tariffs or accepting the increased costs. The latter could erode profit margins or force them to pass on costs to consumers, damaging their competitive advantage. However, shifting manufacturing locations is no simple task – it requires years of planning and substantial investment. To stay competitive and emerge from economic volatility, companies need to explore new strategies, including circular economy models and localized EPR systems.
EPR systems can offer businesses a stable supply of high-quality recyclates, which is particularly important as global supply chains become increasingly unpredictable. The European Union, one of the most successful regions in implementing EPR, has seen its local recycling capacity grow to 13.2 million tonnes of plastic in 2023 (Sustainable Plastics).
Participating in an EPR system allows businesses to access locally produced recyclates for manufacturing, helping to stabilize production even in times of supply chain disruption.
Moreover, as manufacturing locations shift and tariffs increase, companies are incentivized to optimize their products for sustainability. One effective strategy is eco-design – designing products with their end-of-life management in mind. This can reduce waste disposal costs and align with EPR regulations. Eco-design can be incentivized and managed under an holistic EPR solution.
The Growing Demand for Sustainability
Despite rising costs, there is a powerful incentive for businesses to lead the charge in clean transitions. Consumer demand for sustainable products is growing rapidly. In fact, 84% of consumers say poor environmental practices would alienate them from a brand (The Roundup). Furthermore, consumers are willing to pay a 9.7% sustainability premium, even amid inflationary pressures (PwC).
Companies that prioritize sustainability are not only aligning with consumer values but also positioning themselves for long-term success. A commitment to sustainability and EPR allows companies to build loyal customer bases and secure a competitive edge.
Conclusion: Turning Challenges Into Opportunities
Rather than viewing tariffs and trade tensions as a hindrance, businesses should see this period of uncertainty as an opportunity to take proactive steps. By investing in sustainable innovation, circular economic practices, and complying with regulations like EPR, businesses can stabilize their operations and future-proof themselves against future economic instability.
In times of economic disruption, sustainability isn’t just an ethical choice – it’s a strategic decision that can help secure long-term success and market leadership.
If your company is facing the impact of tariffs, integrating an EPR scheme into your business model is the way forward.
Now is the time to act!
To understand how to participate and benefit from EPR, contact us at solutions@gfs.earth.
Join our newsletter to stay updated on the latest from the world of EPR and circular economy.
Frequently Asked Questions: US Tariffs, Sustainability Strategy, and the Case for EPR
Q1. How do US tariffs directly impact sustainability budgets for governments and businesses?
Higher tariffs raise manufacturing costs and compress GDP growth, which forces governments to cut discretionary spending — and environmental programmes are consistently among the first items reduced. For businesses, rising input costs shrink the margins that would otherwise fund clean transitions.
Q2. Why are plastic production costs increasing under the current tariff regime?
Plastic manufacturing relies heavily on imported raw materials, processing chemicals, and components from countries like China — all now subject to significantly higher US import duties. The American Chemistry Council estimates this translates to a 12–20% increase in plastic production costs depending on supply chain adjustments.
Q3. What is EPR and how does it help governments manage waste costs under fiscal pressure?
EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) shifts the financial and operational burden of waste management from governments to the producers who put products on the market. For governments under budget pressure, this means one of their largest operational cost lines — waste management accounts for 20–50% of municipal operational budgets in many countries — is shared with the private sector.
Q4. How can EPR systems help businesses reduce their dependency on imported raw materials?
EPR systems generate a domestic supply of high-quality recyclates — recovered packaging materials that can substitute for virgin imported inputs. As tariffs make imported raw materials more expensive, access to locally sourced recyclates through an EPR scheme directly reduces exposure to trade policy volatility.
Q5. What is eco-design and how does it connect to EPR compliance under tariff pressure?
Eco-design means designing products with their end-of-life management in mind — choosing materials that are recyclable, reducing unnecessary packaging weight, and ensuring components can be separated and recovered. Under EPR frameworks, eco-design is often incentivised through lower producer fees, making it simultaneously a compliance strategy and a cost reduction lever.
Q6. Are consumers still willing to pay more for sustainable products despite rising costs?
Yes — PwC data cited in the article shows consumers are willing to pay a 9.7% sustainability premium even amid inflationary pressures, while 84% say poor environmental practices would lead them to abandon a brand. The commercial case for sustainability is holding even under economic stress.
Q7. What should companies do right now in response to tariff-driven cost pressures on sustainability?
The most resilient response combines three moves: invest in EPR compliance to access domestic recyclate supply chains, accelerate eco-design to reduce materials dependency, and treat sustainability as a market positioning tool rather than a cost centre — because the consumer premium for sustainable brands remains commercially significant.