Singapore Tightens Sustainability Rules: Major Firms Face Expanded Packaging Reporting Mandate
Singapore is ramping up its environmental regulations, placing stricter sustainability demands on businesses operating within its borders. The expanded Mandatory Packaging Reporting (MPR) framework now mandates that companies with a significant market presence must meticulously track and report their packaging footprint annually, signalling a decisive shift towards holding producers accountable for their waste.
Enacted under the Resource Sustainability Act, the MPR regime has been in force since 2020. It currently applies to firms with an annual turnover exceeding S$10 million that import or use packaging locally. This net captures a broad spectrum of entities, from multinational brand owners and manufacturers to large supermarket chains. These obligated companies are required to collect detailed data on the type, form, and weight of all packaging they introduce to the Singaporean market and submit an annual report to the National Environment Agency (NEA).
Beyond mere data submission, the policy requires actionable strategy. Each company must also file at least one formal "3R" plan—detailing how it will Reduce, Reuse, or Recycle packaging materials. These plans must be backed by robust data collection methodologies, with records retained for up to five years for potential audit. The annual submission window typically runs from January to March, with the next major deadline set for March 31, 2026.
Analysts view this as a critical preparatory step for a more comprehensive Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging, slated for implementation by 2025. An EPR system would formally assign producers financial and operational responsibility for the end-of-life management of their products' packaging. This move aligns Singapore with global trends seen in the European Union and parts of North America, pushing the cost of waste management back up the supply chain.
"The MPR isn't just about paperwork; it's a strategic tool to force introspection," says Dr. Aris Lim, a sustainability policy researcher at the National University of Singapore. "By forcing companies to quantify their packaging, it makes waste visible on balance sheets. This data is the foundation for the targeted EPR fees and the upcoming 2026 beverage container return scheme, which will fundamentally change how single-use drinks are packaged and recovered."
To aid compliance, the NEA and its partners have rolled out guidebooks, industry briefings, and initiatives under the Packaging Partnership Programme. For businesses, early and thorough compliance is not just about avoiding penalties. It offers a chance to identify inefficiencies, reduce material costs, and future-proof operations against increasingly stringent regulations.
/// USER COMMENTS ///
Rajesh Menon, Supply Chain Director at a consumer goods firm: "The initial data gathering was a challenge, but it revealed surprising inefficiencies in our secondary packaging. We've already identified a switch to a lighter-weight material that will save us costs in the long run. It's a proactive push we needed."
Sarah Chen, small business owner (F&B): "As a smaller supplier, I'm watching this closely. If the turnover threshold drops, it will hit us hard. The reporting overhead is daunting. I hope the NEA provides tailored support for SMEs, not just the giants."
David Ho, environmental activist: "Finally! But it's still too slow and relies on corporate self-reporting—a classic fox-guarding-the-henhouse scenario. Why are we waiting until 2025 for full EPR? The landfills aren't getting any smaller. This is baby steps when we need giant leaps. Where are the mandatory reduction targets?"
Professor Lena Wong, circular economy consultant: "Singapore's phased approach is pragmatic. Building a reliable data baseline via MPR is essential before launching EPR. You can't manage what you don't measure. This creates a market signal for better design and investment in local recycling infrastructure."