Can EPR costs be mitigated by obtaining written confirmation from on-trade customers that bottles won't leave the premises?

Members report that some consultancies have identified a potential EPR cost mitigation route: obtaining written confirmation directly from on-trade customers (not wholesalers) stating that bottles will not be removed from the premises where they were sold. Early indications suggest most on-trade customers are willing to sign such letters.

However, there are significant caveats:

- **DEFRA scrutiny risk** — The regulatory environment is uncertain. DEFRA has already investigated major brands for attempting to exclude the on-trade from waste return schemes to avoid EPR levies, suggesting this approach may face regulatory challenge. - **Interim cost burden** — Wholesalers, retailers and online channels are responding inconsistently to EPR requirements, with some delaying action. Suppliers are currently funding the interim gap, creating six or seven-figure annual impacts depending on sector. - **Collective approach** — Members recommend joining industry collectives (e.g. **CLARITY**) to mount united appeals with DEFRA rather than acting alone, as regulatory interpretation may change. - **Real-world compliance risk** — There are joking but pointed references to enforcement challenges in certain geographies, questioning practical enforceability of such confirmations.

This approach remains experimental and unproven at regulatory level. Members advise treating it as one potential lever in a broader EPR strategy rather than a reliable solution, and staying connected to industry groups monitoring DEFRA's stance.