Sterling AnthonySurveys consistently show that most consumers don’t believe sustainability claims made by CPG companies. That’s dispiriting, given the decades that sustainability has been an overshadowing topic. The disconnect between sustainability claims and belief impacts packaging, for two related reasons.
Reason one is that consumers view packaging as a violator of sustainability principles. Complaints include single-use, solid-waste generation, poor recyclability, and the predominance of plastics. Reason two is that consumers know that packaging is a medium for communicating sustainability claims. Consumers, suspecting bias, take the proverbial consider-the-source attitude.
Forward-thinking companies regard packaging as a source of competitive advantage. Those companies have leveraged packaging in a variety of innovative ways. But sustainability persists as the exception, at least, judging by consumer perception. And as the saying goes: Perception is reality.
There are references that provide advice on how to make believable sustainability claims. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, publishes its Green Guides, requiring that claims not be deceptive and that they be supported by evidence. Then there are the third-party sources providing counsel on how to comply with regulatory requirements, supposedly, without sacrifice of corporate objectives. One might think that the available references and sources provide CPG companies with the wherewithal to devise believable sustainability claims. So why does belief remain elusive?
The answer resides in the generality that characterizes regulatory requirements and the tools used for compliance. The generality affords considerable leeway. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, to the extent that it acknowledges the diversity across industries, member companies, and product categories. A one-size-fits-all approach would have its built-in limitations. Leeway should not be confused with freeway, a road taken for speed and expediency. The latter can produce sustainability claims that comply with regulations, guidelines, and advice, but, nonetheless, meet with consumer rejection.
In further illustration, a metric frequently used in support of sustainability claims is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). It purports to measure the net environmental impact of packaging, cradle-to-grave. When extended beyond disposal to include recycling, the concept is called cradle-to-cradle. LCA can be applied to all types of packaging, including materials, components, and assemblies. With paper, metal, glass, and plastics each touting sustainability credentials via the same metric, it’s a certainty that each is emphasizing the favorable and ignoring the unfavorable. It’s not sinister: it’s the reality of competition. That’s of little consolation to consumers, desiring objective proof of sustainability claims.
With consumer disbelief of sustainability claims remaining high, CPG companies need to adopt a different mindset. A necessary step is to identify the mindset that, in various forms and to various degrees, has prevailed to this point. That mindset has been too conceding, and too often over-correcting, to the point of stretching credulity.
Without exaggeration, packaging is a linchpin of the mass-production, mass-marketing, and mass-distribution continuum, foundational to the quality-of-life in a developed society. CPG companies should not be cowered by attacks that overlook that fact, as if packaging is a scourge unleashed on humanity. The right mindset shields CPG companies from the wayward influences of definitions du jour and concepts du jour. That mindset, nonetheless, does not exempt CPG companies from environmental responsibility and stewardship, reflected in credible sustainability claims.
Another aspect of a right mindset is the acceptance of consumer contradictions and their constraints, without attacking consumers. Consumers want sustainable packaging, but don’t want to forsake performance. Consumers want sustainable packaging, but preferably, not at a price premium. Consumers want sustainable packaging, as in recyclability, but recycling rates are paltry. The list goes on. Unreasonable? Maybe, or just the human tendency to want the best of all worlds.
The right mindset recognizes the value of using consumer research in crafting sustainability claims. It assists CPG companies in choosing among a glossary of terms. The term, compostable, for example, might not sway consumers who don’t compost, lack local infrastructure, or lack the willingness to separate material for collection. As another example, citing that a material contains a given percent of recycled content might be more persuasive than citing that the material is recyclable―or vice-versa. The point is that it’s better to know than to guess or to assume.
Adding to the right mindset is having the belief that consumers want to be believers; that is, consumers would prefer to believe that they are not being deceived. CPG companies can assist by educating consumers about packaging that might otherwise be misunderstood. As an example, what consumers might regard as oversized packaging can be explained as anti-theft, or otherwise functional. Such education can be provided on the packaging, itself, either in text or QR code. Another conveyance can be the company’s website.
As much as anything else, the right mindset does not regard believable sustainability claims as a burdensome obligation but as a path to profits, achieved through increased sales and decreased costs. Regarding the latter, its utility notwithstanding, packaging is an expense. That fact needs to be kept in mind, because sustainability can yield cost reductions throughout the supply chain.
The potential benefits can’t be had with piecemeal, disjointed efforts. Top management must prioritize sustainability and integrate it into every competitive strategy. When believable sustainability claims result, packaging becomes benefactor and beneficiary.
Sterling Anthony, CPP, consults in packaging, marketing, logistics, and human-factors. A former faculty member at the Michigan State University School of Packaging, his contact info is:100 Renaissance Center, Box-176, Detroit, MI 48243; 313/531-1875; [email protected]
The Packaging Recycling Summit (PRS) is the premier U.S. conference for strengthening packaging circularity. In 2026, PRS is transforming into a fully immersive experience where attendees will solve problems, forge partnerships, and explore technologies that are reshaping packaging recovery. Directly connect with sustainable OEM’s at this highly coveted event.
Sterling Anthony
