“sustainable,” “eco-friendly,” or “better for the planet” became common shorthand for responsibility, often used without precise definitions or supporting evidence. What once functioned as brand storytelling has now entered a very different phase.
Across major markets, environmental packaging claims are no longer treated as aspirational messaging. They are treated as regulated commercial statements, subject to consumer protection law and legal enforcement.
From sustainability language to regulated claims
The growing use of environmental claims on packaging has triggered increased scrutiny from regulators. As sustainability messaging expanded, so did consumer confusion. In response, lawmakers and enforcement bodies began applying existing consumer protection laws more aggressively to environmental claims, including those made on packaging.
In the European Union, this legal foundation sits within the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC). The directive prohibits misleading commercial practices, including environmental claims that are vague, unsubstantiated, or likely to deceive consumers. Under this framework, a packaging claim is unlawful if it cannot be clearly explained, verified, and supported by evidence.
Similar principles apply in the United Kingdom through the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides outline how environmental marketing claims such as “compostable,” “biodegradable,” or “recyclable” must be substantiated to avoid being considered misleading.
In Australia, Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading or deceptive environmental claims on packaging. Sustainability statements such as “eco-friendly” or “biodegradable” must be accurate and supported by evidence, regardless of intent. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has identified greenwashing as an enforcement priority, reinforcing that packaging claims must be clear, specific, and verifiable.
While the legal structures differ, the direction is consistent: environmental claims must be provable, specific, and accurate.
Why packaging claims face higher legal risk
Packaging occupies a unique legal position. It is one of the most visible and repeated forms of communication between a brand and a consumer. Unlike advertising campaigns that can be changed or withdrawn quickly, packaging claims are printed, distributed at scale, and often cross borders.
This makes packaging claims especially exposed to legal challenge. A statement printed on packaging may be evaluated simultaneously under multiple legal regimes. What is acceptable in one jurisdiction may be challenged in another. As a result, packaging claims are often among the first to be investigated when regulators assess potential greenwashing.
The risk is not limited to intentional misrepresentation. Even well-intentioned claims can be deemed misleading if they are too broad, lack context, or rely on assumptions rather than evidence.
The claims most often challenged by regulators
Certain environmental packaging claims attract particular scrutiny. Terms such as “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” are frequently challenged because they lack a fixed legal meaning. Without clear qualification, these phrases are considered too vague to verify and therefore legally risky.
“Compostable” claims are also closely examined. Regulators increasingly expect companies to specify under what conditions composting occurs, such as industrial composting versus home composting. A claim that does not clarify these conditions may be considered misleading, especially if appropriate infrastructure is not widely available.
“Recyclable” claims face similar challenges. In several jurisdictions, regulators require evidence that a substantial proportion of consumers can actually access recycling systems that accept the material in question. Technical recyclability alone is often insufficient.
Carbon-related claims, such as “carbon neutral” packaging, are also under growing scrutiny. These claims typically require robust data, transparent methodologies, and credible offsetting practices. Overstatement or lack of clarity can quickly lead to enforcement action.
What the law now expects from packaging communication
Across jurisdictions, enforcement bodies apply a similar logic when assessing environmental packaging claims.
Claims must be clear and specific, avoiding broad or undefined language. They must be supported by evidence that is relevant to the product itself, not general environmental benefits. Where claims only apply under certain conditions, those conditions must be clearly stated.
Importantly, regulators assess claims from the perspective of the average consumer. If a reasonable consumer could be misled by a claim, it may be considered unlawful, regardless of intent.
Where Solinatra fits in this legal context
Within this tightening legal environment, material choice plays a critical role in determining what can be claimed and defended.
Packaging made of Solinatra supports specific, verifiable environmental claims that are grounded in material composition and third-party assessment. Selected Solinatra grades are certified by recognised bodies, including TÜV for 100% biobased content and industrial compostability, and BPI Compostable for compliance with established composting standards.
In addition, Solinatra materials are compatible with other recognised certification frameworks, such as USDA BioPreferred and CMA guidance, depending on application and grade. Further performance characteristics, including landfill biodegradability and anaerobic digestion behaviour, are supported by structured in-house testing.
By clearly distinguishing between certified attributes, compatibility, and test-based performance, Solinatra avoids broad sustainability language and supports packaging claims that are precise, substantiated, and defensible under current consumer protection and environmental claims law.
Solinatra is the new baseline for packaging claims
