In 2025, sustainability is no longer an aspirational idea reserved for annual reports or brand manifestos. It has become a structural requirement, embedded in regulation, scrutinised by regulators, and increasingly assessed by consumers who expect evidence, not intention.
For brands navigating plastic packaging, EPR compliance, and sustainability commitments, this marks a decisive shift:
Regulation has removed the question of whether to act. What remains a choice is how brands respond, whether they lead with credibility or settle for minimum compliance.
Why purpose is no longer optional for brands
Pressure on brands is mounting from every direction at once.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws are reshaping who pays for plastic waste and how responsibility is assigned. These frameworks shift the cost and accountability for packaging waste from municipalities back to producers, fundamentally altering how brands must plan, report, and act.
In the United States alone, seven states, including California, Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington, have now adopted comprehensive EPR packaging laws as of October 2025, creating overlapping compliance obligations across markets. [1]
This is not limited to the U.S. Regulators across North America and Europe are also tightening rules around environmental marketing and sustainability claims. In Canada, updated anti-greenwashing guidance under competition law now requires claims such as “100% recyclable” to reflect real-world outcomes, not theoretical recyclability. [2]
Taken together, these shifts signal a clear reality:
Purpose is no longer elective. It is a condition of participation in modern market systems.
Compliance is the baseline, not the advantage
As regulation expands, many brands respond by doing what is required: meeting recyclability thresholds, updating disclosures, and adjusting packaging language to remain within legal boundaries.
But compliance does not differentiate. It normalises.
When sustainability is framed purely as a legal obligation, brands begin to sound the same. Claims converge. Messaging flattens. And sustainability becomes a cost to manage rather than a signal of leadership.
At the same time, scrutiny is intensifying. Vague or unsupported environmental claims are increasingly challenged by regulators, watchdogs, and investors. Analysis of corporate sustainability disclosures shows that a significant share of environmental claims fail to translate into substantive performance, leaving room for symbolic action rather than verified impact. [3]
Consumer trust is also at risk. Market research shows that unclear or misleading plastic-related claims can erode confidence in brands and delay progress toward circular systems. [4]
The bottom line: claims without credible substantiation are actively harmful to reputation and long-term value. In this environment, meeting the rules is not the same as earning trust.
The rising cost of vague sustainability claims
The market’s tolerance for broad, unverified sustainability language has diminished sharply.
Where general claims once passed without question, brands now face closer examination of how environmental benefits are defined, measured, and substantiated. In several high-profile cases, companies have been required to withdraw or revise sustainability messaging following regulatory action related to misleading packaging and plastic claims. [5]
Consumers are also more sceptical than ever. Surveys show that many people now interpret generic recycling or sustainability claims as greenwashing when supporting evidence is unclear. The result is not just reputational risk, but disengagement – a growing reluctance to believe sustainability messaging at all. [6]
The cost of vague claims, in other words, is no longer limited to optics. It now extends into regulatory exposure, trust erosion, and long-term brand value.
Leadership starts with proof, not promises
This is where the distinction between compliance and leadership becomes clear.
Leadership is not defined by louder commitments or more ambitious language. It is defined by the ability to stand behind claims with evidence consistently, transparently, and under scrutiny.
Forward-looking brands are beginning to recognise that sustainability credibility depends on systems. Increasingly, this means investing in:
- third-party verification of sustainability and plastic-related claims
- audit-ready data and traceability across supply, recovery, and reporting systems
- documented methodologies that align with EPR requirements and regulatory expectations
In this context, purpose stops being a marketing narrative and becomes a structured, defensible position that can be communicated with confidence.
Leadership vs compliance is now a commercial decision
The distinction between leadership and compliance is no longer philosophical. It is strategic. Compliance ensures access to markets. Leadership builds advantage within them.
Brands that treat sustainability as a box-ticking exercise will meet minimum expectations but struggle to stand out. Those that embed verified, defensible impact into their operations and communications position themselves as credible, future-ready, and trustworthy.
In a market shaped by scrutiny and regulation, leadership is not about doing more for its own sake. It is about doing what can be proved, defended, and sustained over time.
Why this moment matters
Purpose is no longer operating behind the scenes. It is visible, comparable, and increasingly judged against formal standards.
Some brands have already begun to respond to this shift by investing in systems that prioritise verification, traceability, and defensible impact. At Plastic Collective, this has meant supporting organisations to move beyond high-level commitments and toward documented, third-party–verified impact approaches to plastic responsibility that can withstand regulatory and stakeholder scrutiny.
Brands that recognise this shift early and align purpose with proof will be better equipped to navigate regulatory pressure, protect their reputations, and earn long-term trust.
Because in today’s sustainability landscape, purpose without evidence is no longer persuasive.
FAQs
What does “proof” actually mean in sustainability marketing?
Proof means verifiable evidence that sustainability claims are accurate and defensible. In practice, this includes documented data, third-party verification, traceable methodologies, and audit-ready records that can stand up to regulatory scrutiny and stakeholder review.
How do brands validate plastic-related sustainability claims?
Brands validate plastic-related claims by grounding them in certified programs, transparent recovery or impact data, and independent verification. This often involves third-party audits, traceability across waste or supply chains, and documentation aligned with regulatory expectations.
Why are regulators focusing so heavily on sustainability claims now?
Regulators are responding to widespread greenwashing and inconsistent environmental claims. New and emerging frameworks require claims to be specific, accurate, and supported by evidence. Statements that cannot be substantiated increasingly expose brands to enforcement action and reputational risk.
What is the difference between compliance and leadership in sustainability?
Compliance focuses on meeting minimum legal requirements, such as EPR obligations or recyclability standards. Leadership goes further by embedding sustainability into brand strategy through verified outcomes, transparent reporting, and defensible claims that build trust and differentiation.
How can brands make purpose market-facing without risking greenwashing?
Purpose becomes market-facing when it is supported by systems, data, and verification. Brands reduce greenwashing risk by aligning sustainability narratives with documented impact, independent audits, and clear methodologies that can be confidently communicated externally.
Sources:
- “Seven States and Counting: The 2025 Guide to EPR Packaging Compliance,” Proskauer, October 13, 2025, https://www.proskauer.com/alert/the-2025-guide-to-epr-packaging-compliance
- Sarah Perreard, “Green claims under scrutiny: Why granular plastic data is now a strategic imperative,” Earth Action, June 23, 2025 https://www.e-a.earth/insights/green-claims-under-scrutiny-why-granular-plastic-data-is-now-a-strategic-imperative/
- Md Abubakar Siddique, et al., “The truth behind sustainability claims: Examining carbon risk, ESG disclosures, and greenwashing,” Science Direct, January 2026, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521925008221
- “How Does Greenwashing Impact Consumer Trust in Plastic Packaging?” Sustainability Directory, December 14, 2025, https://product.sustainability-directory.com/question/how-does-greenwashing-impact-consumer-trust-in-plastic-packaging/
- “Danone greenwashing cases settled over plastic packaging claims,” September 29, 2025, https://instituteofsustainabilitystudies.com/insights/news-analysis/danone-greenwashing-cases-settled-over-plastic-packaging-claims/
- “Our survey proves it: recycling claims on plastic packaging are greenwashing us,” Client Earth, July 31, 2025, https://www.clientearth.org/latest/news/ipsos-survey-proves-recycling-claims-on-plasitc-packaging-greenwashing/
Header photo by Vlada Karpovich
