Many brands in the EcoAlly community have long pursued sustainable packaging because it aligns with their values and internal commitments.

Today, however, packaging compliance is no longer driven solely by values. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, material bans, and truth-in-labeling requirements are now active, enforceable, and directly tied to reporting obligations, fees, and legal risk.

What makes this moment both exciting and challenging is speed.

Packaging legislation is evolving rapidly across states, municipalities, and global markets. Deadlines are firm, reporting requirements are becoming more detailed, and missteps—especially around labeling—can result in fines, enforcement actions, or higher EPR fees. Increasingly, packaging design decisions are financial decisions. 

Based on what we’re seeing across the regulatory landscape today, the 10 strategies below are the most effective ways for brands to stay compliant, reduce risk, and avoid last-minute scrambles. Even if some of these steps are not yet required where you operate, implementing them now will make future compliance far easier.

Certain materials consistently rise to the top of regulatory scrutiny.

PVC and polystyrene (Styrofoam), while still common in some e-commerce and protective packaging applications, are increasingly restricted due to recyclability challenges and human health concerns. In most cases, these materials can be replaced with recycled polyethylene, paper-based solutions, corrugated inserts, or molded pulp with minimal functional tradeoff.

PFAS—often referred to as “forever chemicals”—are among the fastest-growing compliance risks in packaging today. While most common in food-contact applications, PFAS have become a central focus of state-level bans, and enforcement is accelerating as testing methods improve.

If your business uses takeout containers, bakery packaging, pizza boxes, ice cream tubs, or similar food service items, transitioning to PFAS-free packaging should be treated as a near-term compliance requirement, not a future aspiration.

Single-use bags and service items are among the most regulated packaging formats in the U.S., particularly for brands operating physical retail locations.

Reducing reliance on lightweight single-use plastic bags is increasingly expected—and in many jurisdictions, required. Many brands are encouraging customers to bring reusable bags, while others are moving to branded reusable totes. When paper bags are used, it’s essential to prioritize high post-consumer recycled content, as many states and cities now charge fees on paper bags.

Because bag regulations vary widely by state and municipality, brands operating across multiple locations should actively use legislative maps or tracking tools to determine whether paper, plastic, or reusable bags are allowed—and whether fees apply—at each store.

Extended Producer Responsibility compliance is no longer theoretical. Producers are required to register with Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs), submit detailed annual reports on packaging materials and weights, and budget for ongoing fees.

Brands that delay data collection or PRO engagement risk missing deadlines, facing penalties, or paying higher fees due to poor material choices. Building accurate packaging data systems now is one of the most critical steps brands can take to control future EPR costs.

Packaging design choices increasingly determine both compliance outcomes and EPR costs.

Wherever possible, brands should move toward monomaterial packaging that households can readily recycle. Materials with limited access to recycling infrastructure—such as polystyrene and certain mixed plastics—carry a higher risk.

For food service applications where packaging is likely to be discarded with food waste, compostability can be an appropriate goal—but only when it reflects real-world acceptance by composting facilities.

Recyclability and compostability claims must align with how packaging is actually collected and processed, not just how it is marketed.

Truth-in-labeling requirements are tightening quickly. Vague or unqualified claims such as “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “sustainable” increasingly expose brands to risk.

Labels should be specific and informative, clearly stating material types, recycled content percentages, and disposal instructions. California’s SB 343 makes misleading recyclability claims illegal, and similar frameworks are spreading. Today, labeling decisions carry real legal and financial consequences.

Reusable packaging can offer both environmental and financial benefits in the proper context, but it is not the best solution in all cases.

In food service, reusable dishware and container take-back systems often deliver clear benefits. In e-commerce, however, reusable packaging typically only outperforms single-use recyclable options when return rates are high and logistics are tightly controlled.

Brands should test reuse where it fits their business model, rather than assuming reuse is inherently more compliant or sustainable.

Post-consumer recycled (PCR) content is playing an increasingly central role in packaging regulation. Several states now mandate minimum PCR levels for certain packaging types, and EPR programs are using eco-modulation to reward higher PCR content with lower fees.

It’s important to focus specifically on post-consumer material. Manufacturing scrap reused internally does not qualify as recycled content under FTC guidance and does not deliver the same compliance or cost benefits.

Lightweighting and right-sizing your packaging simultaneously reduces compliance exposure across multiple regulatory areas. Using less material generally lowers EPR fees, reduces risk under emerging right-sizing laws, and cuts shipping costs.

For e-commerce brands in particular, evaluating box sizes, void fill, and packaging-to-product ratios can deliver immediate regulatory and operational benefits.

Compostability is one of the most regulated—and most misunderstood—areas of packaging compliance. States including Colorado, California, Washington, and Maryland require third-party certification for products marketed as compostable and prohibit the use of misleading visual cues or language on non-certified items.

Claims such as “landfill biodegradable” or unqualified “biodegradable” are increasingly restricted or outright prohibited. Unless a product is certified compostable and clearly labeled as such, using compostability language can create significant enforcement risk.

As enforcement increases, third-party verification plays a critical role in reducing risk. Certifications such as FSC® for paper sourcing, GRS for recycled plastic content, How2Recycle® for recyclability, and BPI for compostability help substantiate claims and support compliance across EPR and truth-in-labeling frameworks.

Navigating EPR, packaging compliance, and evolving legislation can feel complex—but with the right strategy, it’s manageable. Brands that act early can reduce costs, protect credibility, and stay ahead. Those who wait will be forced to react.

EcoEnclose partners with brands to clarify EPR obligations, build packaging data systems for reporting, redesign packaging for recyclability and PCR, and prepare for PRO reporting, fees, and eco-modulation.