UK Packaging Compliance Schemes Compared: Valpak, Ecosurety, Clarity & More

If you are an obligated UK packaging producer, you have almost certainly encountered the question: which compliance scheme should I use? It is one of the most commonly searched topics in UK packaging compliance, and for good reason. The choice of scheme affects your costs, the quality of support you receive, and how smoothly your EPR obligations are managed from year to year.

But the compliance scheme landscape has changed significantly since the reformed EPR system launched. What schemes do, how much they cost, and whether you even need one are all questions that deserve honest, up-to-date answers. This guide provides exactly that: a neutral comparison of the major UK compliance schemes, an explanation of what has changed under the new system, and clear guidance on how to decide what is right for your business.

One important note before we begin. Repackd is a data management and compliance software platform. We are not a compliance scheme. We work alongside any scheme, or alongside direct registration. This article is written to be genuinely useful to any obligated producer, regardless of which route they choose.

What Is a Packaging Compliance Scheme?

A packaging compliance scheme is an approved organisation that manages some or all of your packaging regulatory obligations on your behalf. Under the old Packaging Waste Regulations and the PRN (Packaging Recovery Note) system, compliance schemes were the primary route for most obligated producers. The scheme would register you, collect your packaging data, calculate your recovery and recycling obligations, and purchase PRNs and PERNs on your behalf to demonstrate compliance. Essentially, you paid the scheme a fee and they handled the regulatory burden.

Under the reformed Extended Producer Responsibility system, the role of compliance schemes has evolved. The PRN system is being phased out and replaced with EPR fees paid to the scheme administrator. Schemes no longer purchase PRNs in the same way. Instead, their value now centres on:

• Data collection and validation: Helping you gather, organise, and verify your packaging data before submission.
• Submission management: Preparing and submitting your packaging data to DEFRA through the RPD portal.
• Fee management: Managing EPR fee payments on your behalf and providing fee projections.
• Regulatory guidance: Interpreting regulatory changes and advising you on their implications.
• Account management: Providing a dedicated contact who understands your business and your compliance position.

The crucial point is that a compliance scheme does not replace your obligation. You remain the obligated producer. The scheme helps you manage that obligation, but the regulatory responsibility stays with your business. If the scheme makes an error in your submission, you are liable, not them. This is why data accuracy matters so much, and why many producers now complement their scheme membership with independent data management tools.

Do You Still Need a Compliance Scheme Under EPR?

This is one of the most important questions in the reformed landscape, and the answer is: not necessarily.

Under the old PRN system, using a compliance scheme was the default route for almost all obligated producers. The mechanics of purchasing PRNs and PERNs, tracking recycling obligations, and managing the compliance certificate process were complex enough that doing it without a scheme was impractical for most businesses.

Under the reformed EPR, direct registration through the DEFRA RPD portal is now possible and is required for some producers. The scheme administrator (currently the Environment Agency) manages the fee collection centrally, which removes one of the main reasons producers historically needed a scheme. You can register directly, submit your packaging data yourself, and pay your EPR fees without an intermediary.

When a Compliance Scheme Still Makes Sense

• Complex packaging portfolios: If you have hundreds of packaging components across multiple material types, a scheme can help with data management and validation.
• Limited internal resource: If nobody in your business has the time or expertise to manage EPR submissions, a scheme provides hands-off compliance support.
• Regulatory interpretation: Where guidance is ambiguous (and it often is), a scheme can provide informed interpretation based on their experience across many producers. This is especially valuable as new regulations like the Deposit Return Scheme come into effect.
• Legacy PRN obligations: During the transition period, some producers may still have residual PRN-related obligations that a scheme can manage.

When Direct Registration May Be Better

• Straightforward packaging: If you have a relatively simple portfolio with few material types, direct registration is manageable.
• Strong internal capabilities: If you have a dedicated compliance or sustainability team, they can handle submissions directly.
• Cost sensitivity: Direct registration eliminates scheme fees entirely. If your EPR fee liability is modest, the scheme fee can represent a significant percentage on top.
• Data control: Some producers prefer to maintain direct control over their data and submissions rather than delegating to a third party.

Whichever route you choose, having accurate, well-organised packaging data is non-negotiable. A scheme cannot submit data it does not have, and direct registration requires you to compile it yourself. This is where data management tools (whether your scheme's portal, your own systems, or a platform like Repackd) become essential.

The Major UK Compliance Schemes

The UK has a number of approved packaging compliance schemes. Below, we profile the four most commonly used and briefly mention several others. The information here is based on publicly available data, industry knowledge, and feedback from producers. Fees and services can change, so we recommend confirming current details directly with each scheme.

Valpak

Valpak is the UK's largest and oldest packaging compliance scheme, established in 1997. They handle compliance for thousands of members, from FTSE 100 companies to mid-size producers. Their scale is their primary advantage: decades of experience, a large team of compliance specialists, and historically the strongest buying power in the PRN market.

Strengths:

• Market-leading scale: Valpak's size means they have deep institutional knowledge and experience across virtually every sector and packaging type. They have seen most compliance scenarios before.
• Comprehensive service: They offer end-to-end compliance management including data collection, submission preparation, fee management, and regulatory updates. Their Valpak Online portal provides data management capabilities.
• PRN buying power: Historically, Valpak's volume gave them strong negotiating power in the PRN market. While this matters less under the reformed EPR, it remains relevant during the transition period.
• Large compliance team: With a big team, they can handle complex multi-site operations and have specialists in different material categories.
• Industry influence: Valpak actively engages with DEFRA and industry bodies on regulatory development, which means they are often among the first to understand upcoming changes.

Considerations:

• Cost: Valpak's fees tend to sit at the higher end of the market. For smaller producers, the annual scheme fee can feel disproportionate relative to their EPR fee liability. Pricing is typically tiered, with enterprise-level service commanding premium fees.
• Service can feel impersonal: With thousands of members, some producers report that the account management experience can be less personal than with smaller schemes, particularly at lower tiers.
• Technology platform: While Valpak has invested in their digital capabilities, some producers have noted that their portal can feel dated compared to newer, purpose-built platforms. Data entry and reporting workflows may not be as streamlined as more modern tools.

Best suited for: Large enterprises with complex, multi-site operations and significant packaging tonnage. Businesses that value a big-name compliance partner with deep regulatory experience and are willing to pay a premium for comprehensive service.

Ecosurety

Ecosurety has positioned itself as the modern, sustainability-focused alternative in the compliance scheme market. They are B Corp certified, which reflects their commitment to environmental and social standards beyond basic regulatory compliance. Ecosurety has grown rapidly in recent years, attracting producers who want a scheme that aligns with broader sustainability goals.

Strengths:

• Strong sustainability credentials: B Corp certification is not trivial. It demonstrates that Ecosurety meets high standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. For producers with ESG commitments, this alignment matters.
• Modern approach: Ecosurety has invested in digital infrastructure and takes a technology-forward approach to compliance. Their reporting tools and online portal are generally well-regarded.
• Customer service: Consistently receives positive feedback for responsiveness and proactive communication. Producers often cite their account management as a key differentiator.
• Transparent pricing: Ecosurety has been relatively open about their pricing structure, which helps producers understand what they are paying for. No hidden extras is a common theme in producer feedback.
• Sustainability reporting: Beyond basic compliance, Ecosurety provides robust sustainability reporting that helps producers communicate their environmental performance to stakeholders.

Considerations:

• Smaller scale than Valpak: While Ecosurety is growing, they do not have the same volume or market share as Valpak. This historically meant less PRN buying power, though this matters less under the reformed EPR.
• Premium positioning: Their sustainability focus and service quality come at a price that, while competitive, is not the cheapest option in the market.

Best suited for: Mid-size producers and brands with strong sustainability commitments. Companies that value a modern, responsive scheme with genuine environmental credentials and are willing to pay a modest premium for that alignment.

Clarity Environmental

Clarity Environmental is a mid-size compliance scheme with a solid reputation for responsive service and reasonable pricing. Their Clarion data management platform provides producers with a dedicated portal for managing packaging data and compliance workflows. Clarity has built its reputation on personal service and dedicated account management.

Strengths:

• Responsive service: Clarity consistently receives positive feedback for fast, helpful responses to member queries. Producers regularly cite the personal touch as a key reason for staying.
• Dedicated account managers: Every member gets a named account manager who understands their business. This is available across all tiers, not just enterprise accounts.
• Clarion platform: Their proprietary data management system provides structured data capture, reporting dashboards, and submission tools. It is a capable platform that handles the core compliance workflow.
• Reasonable pricing: Clarity's fees are generally competitive, sitting in the mid-range. They offer good value for businesses that want personal service without the premium pricing of larger schemes.
• Good retention rates: High member retention suggests consistent satisfaction with service quality over time.

Considerations:

• Smaller team: With a smaller operation than Valpak or Ecosurety, there may be capacity constraints during peak submission periods.
• Less brand recognition: Clarity is well-known within the compliance industry but less familiar to producers who are new to EPR and searching for a scheme for the first time.
• Platform limitations: While the Clarion platform is capable, it may not have the depth of features offered by specialist compliance software tools that focus solely on data management and analysis.

Best suited for: SMEs that want the combination of personal account management and a capable data platform at a reasonable price point. Businesses that value a relationship with their scheme and want to feel like more than just a membership number.

Comply Direct

Comply Direct positions itself as the straightforward, budget-friendly option for producers who need compliance scheme membership without the frills. Their proposition is simple: they do what is required, they do it competently, and they charge less for it.

Strengths:

• Competitive pricing: Comply Direct's fees are typically the lowest among the well-known schemes. For cost-conscious producers, the savings can be meaningful, particularly for businesses with modest packaging tonnage where scheme fees represent a significant percentage of total compliance cost.
• Straightforward service: No unnecessary complexity. You get compliance management, data submission, and regulatory updates without being upsold on ancillary services.
• Efficient process: The lean operation means less bureaucracy. Onboarding is fast and the administration is straightforward.

Considerations:

• Fewer additional services: You get the essentials but not much beyond that. If you need detailed sustainability reporting, strategic packaging advice, or extensive hand-holding through complex compliance scenarios, you may need to look elsewhere.
• Basic data portal: The online tools are functional but not as feature-rich as those offered by larger schemes or specialist software platforms.
• Less hand-holding: There is no dedicated account manager at the standard tier. Support is available, but the service model assumes a more self-sufficient member.

Best suited for: Budget-conscious producers with straightforward packaging portfolios who understand their compliance obligations and want a no-frills scheme at the lowest cost. Businesses that are comfortable being relatively self-directed in their compliance management.

Other Schemes Worth Knowing

The four schemes above represent the most commonly discussed options, but the UK market includes several other approved compliance schemes, each with their own strengths:

• Biffpack: Operated by Biffa, one of the UK's largest waste management companies. Their integration with waste collection and recycling infrastructure gives them a unique perspective on the practical realities of packaging recovery.
• Paperpak: Specialist in paper and card packaging compliance. If your portfolio is predominantly paper-based, their focused expertise may be valuable.
• Pennine-Pack: A smaller scheme with a loyal membership base, particularly among northern-based producers. Known for personal service and competitive pricing.
• Smart Comply: A newer entrant positioning itself as a technology-led compliance scheme. Worth watching as the market evolves.
• T2 (formerly Todmorden 2): Another smaller scheme that competes primarily on price and personal service for smaller producers.

The right choice among these depends on your specific circumstances: sector, location, packaging types, and what you value in a scheme relationship.

Compliance Scheme Comparison Table

The following table summarises how the four major schemes compare across the criteria that matter most. Fee ranges are approximate and based on publicly available information as of early 2026. Always confirm current pricing directly with the scheme.

How to Choose the Right Compliance Scheme

There is no universally best compliance scheme. The right choice depends on several factors specific to your business. Work through these considerations to narrow down your decision.

1. Your Company Size and Packaging Tonnage

Larger businesses with high tonnage and complex multi-site operations tend to get the most value from comprehensive schemes like Valpak, where the scale of service matches the scale of the compliance challenge. Smaller producers with modest tonnage may find that the premium service of a larger scheme is disproportionate to their needs and that a mid-range option like Clarity or a budget option like Comply Direct offers better value.

2. Packaging Complexity

If your packaging portfolio includes a wide variety of material types, multi-layer structures, or unusual components, you need a scheme with deep technical expertise. The account management and regulatory interpretation capabilities of Valpak, Ecosurety, or Clarity become more valuable as complexity increases. For straightforward, predominantly single-material packaging, a more basic service may suffice.

3. Budget

Be realistic about what you can afford and what you need. A business paying £3,000 in EPR fees probably cannot justify a £5,000 scheme fee. Equally, a business paying £200,000 in EPR fees should not choose its scheme solely on the basis of saving £500 in administration fees. The quality of data management and fee optimisation advice can easily pay for itself many times over at higher tonnages. Remember that EPR fees are not your only packaging-related cost — Plastic Packaging Tax may also apply, and a good scheme or data platform can help you manage both.

4. Need for Hand-Holding vs Self-Service

Some businesses want a compliance partner they can call with questions, who proactively contacts them about regulatory changes, and who manages the entire submission process end to end. Others want a lean, efficient service that handles the basics and stays out of the way. Be honest about which camp you fall into. A producer who values self-sufficiency will be frustrated by a scheme that insists on extensive account management touch-points, and vice versa.

5. Sustainability Goals

If your business has public sustainability commitments, ESG reporting requirements, or board-level targets for environmental performance, the quality of your scheme's sustainability reporting matters. Ecosurety's B Corp certification and sustainability focus may align better with these goals than a purely compliance-focused scheme. Some schemes also offer carbon reporting and circular economy advisory services that feed into broader sustainability strategies.

6. Data Portability

Consider what happens to your data if you want to switch schemes in the future. Some schemes make it straightforward to export your packaging data; others make it less convenient. Before committing, ask about data portability. This is another reason why maintaining your own independent data management system — whether in spreadsheets or in a platform like Repackd — provides insurance against being locked into a single scheme.

The producers who get the best outcomes are the ones who choose their scheme based on what their business actually needs, not based on which scheme has the best sales pitch.

Where Repackd Fits In

We want to be completely clear about what Repackd is and what it is not. Repackd is not a compliance scheme. We are not approved by DEFRA to manage producer obligations. We do not submit data on your behalf. We do not collect EPR fees.

Repackd is a data management and analysis platform that works alongside your chosen compliance scheme, or alongside direct registration. Think of it as the data intelligence layer that sits beneath your compliance route, whichever route that is.

What Repackd Does

• Collects and manages packaging data accurately: Structured data capture with validation rules, supplier collaboration tools, and CSV import with AI-powered column mapping. Your data is clean, complete, and audit-ready.
• Runs automated RAM assessments: The five-stage RAM methodology is built into the platform. Every packaging component is assessed consistently and correctly, with full traceability of how each rating was derived.
• Generates DEFRA-compliant reports: Export your packaging data in the exact 15-column RPD format DEFRA requires. No manual formatting, no column-matching errors.
• Models fee savings: See instantly how changing a material, redesigning a component, or switching a supplier affects your total EPR fee liability. Identify the highest-impact opportunities to reduce your fees.
• Provides real-time dashboards: Live visibility into your tonnage, fee projections, RAM rating distribution, and compliance status. No waiting for scheme reports.

How It Works with Your Scheme

The workflow is straightforward. You use Repackd to collect, manage, and analyse your packaging data. When it is time to submit, you export your data from Repackd in the format your scheme or DEFRA's RPD portal requires. Your scheme handles the submission and obligation management. Repackd handles the data intelligence.

Think of it this way:

This separation of concerns means you get the best of both worlds. Your scheme provides the compliance expertise and regulatory management. Repackd provides the data accuracy and analytical power. Neither replaces the other; they complement each other.

And if you decide to go the direct registration route instead of using a scheme, Repackd supports that too. You use the same platform to manage your data and generate the submission files that you upload directly to the RPD portal yourself.

Common Mistakes When Choosing a Scheme

Having spoken with hundreds of obligated producers, we see several recurring mistakes in scheme selection that are worth flagging.

Choosing Solely on Price

The cheapest scheme is not always the most cost-effective. If a budget scheme does not provide adequate data validation or fee optimisation advice, the money you save on scheme fees may be dwarfed by the money you overpay in EPR fees due to inaccurate data or missed optimisation opportunities. And if data errors lead to under-reporting, the penalties and fines can far exceed any scheme fee savings. Consider the total cost of compliance, not just the scheme invoice.

Assuming the Scheme Handles Everything

No scheme operates without your input. You still need to provide accurate packaging data, review submissions before they go to DEFRA, and make decisions about packaging changes that affect your compliance position. Producers who assume they can hand everything to the scheme and forget about it often end up with data quality issues that surface during audits, potentially triggering enforcement action.

Not Asking About Data Portability

If you realise after a year that your scheme is not the right fit, switching is much easier if you can export your data cleanly. Ask about this upfront. Better still, maintain your own data management system so your packaging data is never held hostage by a single provider.

Ignoring the Technology

The quality of a scheme's data portal affects your day-to-day experience more than most producers realise at the outset. A clunky, dated portal means more time spent on data entry, more manual workarounds, and more frustration. If possible, request a demo of the scheme's online tools before committing.

The Bottom Line

Choosing a compliance scheme is a practical decision, not a permanent one. All the major schemes deliver the core service competently: they will manage your registration, handle your submissions, and keep you compliant with key EPR deadlines. The differences are in the details: the quality of account management, the sophistication of data tools, the depth of sustainability reporting, and the price point.

Our honest advice: choose the scheme that matches your actual needs today, maintain your own packaging data independently, and review the relationship annually. Keep an eye on the EPR deadline calendar so you know when key submission and switching windows fall. The compliance scheme market is competitive and evolving. Switching is possible. Being locked into a poor fit is not necessary.

And whatever scheme you choose (or if you choose direct registration), make sure your data is accurate. That is the foundation everything else is built on. Inaccurate data submitted through the best scheme in the world is still inaccurate data. The scheme manages the process; the data drives the outcome.