In the EU, product producers have some level of responsibility for minimizing, reusing, recovering, and processing packaging. A “producer” here is defined as any party who first fills the packaging with goods (i.e., a brand) or first puts filled packaging on the market (ie an importer). Producers include:

• Importers
• Intermediaries
• Stationary dealers
• Marketplace merchants
• Online shop operators
• Physical shop operators
• Direct-to-consumer sellers

Most EPR laws require producers to register, pay a membership or licensing fee, and collect and report data on their packaging use and end-of-life.

However, EPR Legislation in Europe is tricky because there is no unified set of requirements for all the countries in the European Union. Brands must register in each country and may have different laws to follow.

For example, the UK has a minimum registration threshold of £2 million and 50 tons of packaging. On the other hand, Germany and France have no minimum threshold and require all producers to register.

Packaging waste is divided into three categories in the reporting process:

1. Sales/Primary Packaging - Packaging that encloses the product and transfers to the customer at the point of sale
2. Group/Secondary Packaging - Packaging that holds sales units together
3. Transport/Tertiary Packaging - Packaging used for transporting goods

Brands selling in Europe should become familiar with the EPR requirements for all countries they sell in and ensure they register in and comply with the laws of each country.

The Packaging Waste Directive took effect in 1994 and was amended in 2005 and 2018. Updated requirements are still being rolled out through 2030.

The Directive requires Member States (countries within the EU) to put systems in place to manage the return, collection, reuse, or recovery of used packaging.

This law applies to countries within the EU and operates at a government level. As such, it doesn’t generally apply to brands directly, but governments may pass the responsibility to producers and importers through EPR legislation.

By 2024, all Member States must have EPR schemes in place.

The Waste Framework Directive sets the foundation for managing waste within the EU. This directive requires governments to manage waste without:

• Harming human or environmental health
• Causing risk to air, water, soil, plants, or animals
• Disturbing the community through noise or odors
• Harming the countryside or other places of special interest

Within this Framework, waste is managed in the following hierarchy:

1. Prevention (the preferred option)
2. Preparing for Reuse
3. Recycling
4. Recovery
5. Disposal (the last resort)

One key goal of the framework is to recover as much usable material as possible through methods like recycling. “End-of-Waste” criteria identify materials or components that can be recovered for future use.

While this Directive applies to governments, it also influences the EPR legislation set by each country.

The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is a legislative framework that aims to enhance EU Companies’ sustainability reporting. It will require EU brands to expand and standardize their sustainability reporting, encompassing environmental, social, and governance aspects.

This Directive emphasizes material ESG disclosures, aiming for transparency and comparability. It’s designed to align with global sustainability goals and increase transparency, making it easier for stakeholders to assess a company’s ESG.

CSRD applies to large EU and non-EU companies listed on EU markets. It also affects EU and large non-EU small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Micro-enterprises are exempted.

To qualify as a micro-enterprise, brands must meet two of the following three criteria:

• Fewer than ten employees
• Balance sheet total below EUR 2 million
• Turnover between EUR 2 million

Brands must comply with CSRD by broadening their sustainability reporting and including environmental, social, and governance factors. They must report material ESG information in a standardized format. Showing a commitment to sustainability and integrating it into packaging decisions and strategies will be critical for complying with CSRD.

Proposed in 2023 and awaiting formal approval, the Green Claims Directive is the EU’s next step in combating greenwashing. This Directive empowers consumers to make more sustainable choices and prevents brands from making misleading or unsubstantiated ESG claims.

Once in place, this directive will ban several common greenwashing practices. The following are most likely to apply to packaging strategy:

• Generic or vague environmental claims such as “eco-friendly,” “natural,” or “climate neutral” without substantiated proof (e.g., a life cycle assessment)

• Use of offset programs alone to claim products have a neutral, limited, or positive impact on the environment

• Sustainability labels not based on approved certifications established by trusted authorities such as ISO, Ecolabel, or EPD

• Sustainability claims about the durability of a product under time or intensity constraints without standardized proof

• Presenting goods as repairable when they are not*

* We see a gap in the current proposed legislation about misleading claims about the recyclability of packaging and products. Unfortunately, many companies label packaging in a way that makes customers overestimate the recycled content or recyclability of the material. We wouldn’t be surprised to see later addendums addressing this gap. In the meantime, brands that clearly communicate the recycled content and recyclability of their packaging will be ahead of the compliance curve.

Now that we’ve taken a deep dive into various packaging guidelines in the EU let’s go over some of the legislation to be aware of in the United States.

The FTC Green Guides, or "Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims," are guidelines issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S. They aim to prevent deceptive environmental marketing claims by businesses and empower customers to choose more sustainable products.

These guidelines establish standards for truthful and substantiated claims in areas including eco-friendliness, recyclability, energy efficiency, and more. Compliance with these guidelines is crucial to avoid deceptive advertising practices and legal action by the FTC. The guides are regularly updated to align with consumer expectations and market changes.

Brands can refer to the FTC Green Guides to ensure they align with FTC requirements. In general, ensuring that all environmental or sustainability claims are accurate and backed up by evidence will help brands stay within compliance.

Proposed in March 2023, this potential rule from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would require public companies in the United States to include climate-related disclosures in their statements and reports. This includes carbon emissions and other GHG emissions.

This proposal aims to provide investors and decision-makers with more transparent, comparable information about the climate risks and sustainability progress of companies.

Under the current proposal, only large public companies would be subject to the new requirements.

There is no current date for approval or adoption of this rule. Still, brands that are likely to be affected can prepare now by ensuring they collect and maintain accurate emissions data.

In our Guide to EPR Legislation, we go into detail about the current and proposed legislation and trends related to sustainable packaging. One of the emerging trends in the United States is Extended Producer Responsibility Laws like those in other countries.

Like countries in the EU, each state in the US has unique rules about sustainability and corporate responsibility. Some states have little to no oversight. Others, like California, are becoming increasingly restrictive of potentially harmful practices like single-use plastics.

Four states have EPR Legislation approved and are in the early stages of implementation: Oregon, Maine, Colorado, and California. More states have EPR bills in the proposal process, and we expect to see this number expand.

It’s unclear how (or if) e-commerce packaging will be handled under these states’ EPR laws. We recommend that all brands stay up-to-date with changing EPR legislation. If laws that apply to them are passed, ensure proper registration, reporting, and payments to the correct PROs.

We also encourage all brands to take steps early by evaluating their packaging (and business practices) to identify ways to prioritize sustainability.

We will continue to update our Guide to EPR Legislation and Packaging Sustainability Requirements, so we encourage you to use it as a resource as you navigate changing guidelines.

This law, passed in California in 2021, aims to help consumers more easily understand what is and isn’t recyclable in the state. This will be achieved by requiring manufacturers and retailers to include accurate, easy-to-understand recycling information on their packaging — and prohibiting deceptive or inaccurate recycling labels.

CalRecycle is spearheading research to identify issues with existing recyclability labeling and information practices. Once the legislation is in place, brands making or selling products in California must ensure their packaging includes clear, accurate recycling information that complies with established standards.

The Colorado Truth in Labeling Act was passed in May of 2023. Unlike California’s Truth in Labeling requirements, this Act mainly focuses on compostable packaging.

This law aims to help reduce contamination rates in composting facilities and empower consumers to properly dispose of products and packaging.

Under this law, any product or packaging presented as compostable must be certified by a trusted third party like BPI and clearly labeled with accurate composting information and instructions. Using words, labels, images, or other marketing or advertising to mislead customers about the product’s compostability will be prohibited.

States and governments within the US are slowly passing more legislation to promote sustainable practices on a public and commercial basis.

However, regardless of legislation, it’s important to note that climate-related lawsuits, especially greenwashing suits, are coming up more and more frequently. The FTC is more actively enforcing its Green Guides, mentioned above, to prevent businesses from using deceptive or misleading messaging about sustainability.

These lawsuits increase the pressure on both governments and corporations to speed up the progress toward sustainability goals. So even if some of the legislation highlighted here isn’t official until 2025 or later, brands that step up and commit to transparency and sustainability now will be poised for success.

PFAS Bans are some of the fastest-growing around the country. PFAS stands for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. These artificial chemicals are toxic to people and the planet. They are “forever chemicals” and don’t break down in the body or the environment.

Many states have already banned intentionally added PFAS in packaging materials, and more have legislation on the way. Some states also make it illegal to label anything containing PFAS as compostable or recyclable.

Even before these regulations started taking hold, we took steps to ensure that all of our packaging materials meet the highest safety standards — and are free from PFAS.

If your brand uses other packaging, confirm it is free from intentionally added PFAS. We recommend this even if you are not currently selling in an area with bans, as we expect PFAS bans to become more common as time goes on.

Some studies have concluded that PVC is the most environmentally damaging type of plastic today. Since PVC contains chlorine, it’s linked to ozone layer destruction, water contamination, human health issues, and harm to wildlife.

Because of this, some states and countries have enacted bans on PVC. With environmental and health advocates pushing to outlaw the chemical, we expect more bans to follow.

Countries that have already banned PVC include:

• Canada
• The Czech Republic
• Spain
• South Korea

The European Union also has a pending ban on PVC, and US cities like Rahway, NJ, and Glen Cove, NY, have banned PVC in food packaging or utensils.

For any brands still using PVC-based components in their packaging, we recommend exploring alternatives made from safer, recycled plastic or non-plastic materials like paper.

The state of California enacted the Rigid Plastic Packaging Container Law (RPPC) to enhance plastic waste reduction and recycling rates.

The law mandates that plastic packaging containers manufactured, imported to, or sold in the state must meet certain criteria, including containing a minimum of 25% recycled materials, being reusable, or having a 45% recycling rate. However, specific products like food, drugs, and medical devices are exempt from this law.

If selling products in rigid plastic containers in California, brands should become familiar with the criteria and ensure their products meet at least one of the minimum requirements.

The Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation, established in 1989, aimed to reduce heavy metal usage in packaging nationwide.

Currently adopted by 19 US states, including 10 in the Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse (TPCH), and 9 non-member states, it regulates intentionally introduced heavy metals and substances in packaging and components for sale.

The restricted substances encompass lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PFAS, and ortho-phthalates, with a total concentration limit of 100 parts per million (ppm). Packaging components like blocking, closures, and coatings fall within its purview.

Importantly, TPCH mandates importers and manufacturers to furnish compliance or exemption certificates upon request, impacting companies placing products in packages.

EcoEnclose packaging solutions are free from these prohibited materials. If using other packaging materials, follow the proper steps to gain documentation related to your packaging.

California Proposition 65 rarely, if ever, applies to packaging. However, enough people asked us about this law that we wanted to address it here.

California Proposition 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enfothey 1986, requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, congenital disabilities, or other reproductive harm.

This list is updated annually and includes various chemicals commonly found in products, workplaces, and the environment. Businesses must provide a clear and reasonable warning to consumers about exposure to these listed chemicals in their products or environments.

EcoEnclose’s packaging solutions do not lead consumers to significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

A Full Material Disclosure (FMD) lists all of the ingredients, components, and substances in a product. The requirements of an FMD do allow for some proprietary ingredient protections. However, information about the hazards of any chemicals or ingredients must be disclosed.

Few of our EcoAllies will find FMDs relevant to their brand’s compliance strategy. Plastic manufacturers or chemical manufacturers are most likely to receive requests for FMDs. However, having complete and accurate information about the ingredients used in your packaging and products can be a helpful step for any brand.

Finding all the information about various products and packaging can be tedious for consumers. The Digital Product Passport Library aims to change that by creating a searchable database of product information.

DPPs are not currently required by law, and the library is still in the earlier stages of development. Creating a DPP can help your brand exchange information with partners more easily and access compliance data from one central hub.