Green Claims Approval: Take the Sentence Apart Before Legal Does

Most brands run a recyclable claim as a yes or no question. Is the pack recyclable? Someone says yes, legal reads the back panel, and artwork goes to print.

That's the myth. A recyclable claim is never just true. It's true about a specific component, in the places that component is sold, for as long as the evidence behind it stays current. Lose any one of those and the sentence turns misleading without anyone touching the copy.

Take one claim apart. This one is a composite of common wording patterns, not any brand's artwork:

Bottle made with recycled plastic and fully recyclable.

Picture a personal care bottle with a pump. Read it against US federal guidance, California's labeling law, the EU rules that apply from 27 September 2026 and the UK's packaging EPR methodology, and most of it falls over.

The short answer. A green claims approval workflow tests each word of the proposed wording against the component it describes and the market it will appear in. It attaches evidence to every word that needs it, then signs the approval as a record with a stated scope, an expiry date and the events that reopen it.

Why this is an EPR problem, not just a marketing one

Claims and EPR run on the same data. CalRecycle's recyclability determinations for SB 54 covered material categories rely on the SB 343 material characterization study ^[8]. In the UK, large producers assess household packaging with PackUK's Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM), and red rated packaging pays higher fees ^[10]. Under the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), recyclability performance grades apply from 2030 ^[6]. The component that can't support a recyclable claim is often the same one that pushes up a fee or a grade.

"Fully" is the word the pump kills

The Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides allow an unqualified recyclable claim only when the entire package is recyclable, excluding minor incidental components. When only some components recycle, the claim has to say which ones. The Guides go further: if any component significantly limits the ability to recycle the item, any recyclable claim would be deceptive (16 CFR 260.12(c) and (d)) ^[1].

In our composite, component scoring put the bottle in a supportable range and the pump well outside it. On any pack with a pump or a mixed material closure, I'd strike the word from the claims template.

The EU closes the same door more firmly. From 27 September 2026, Member States must apply the Empowering Consumers Directive, which adds to the EU list of practices that are unfair in all circumstances "making an environmental claim about the entire product" when it "concerns only a certain aspect of the product" (Directive (EU) 2024/825, Annex, point 4b) ^[3]. Practices on that list don't get a case by case assessment ^[4]. The directive's own recital 11 gives an example close to this pack: a product marketed as "made with recycled material" when only the packaging is recycled ^[3]. Our reading is that "fully recyclable" on a pack whose pump doesn't recycle is a whole pack claim resting on one component. Counsel makes the final call.

"Recyclable" is true somewhere. Where?

Under the Green Guides, an unqualified recyclable claim needs recycling facilities available to a substantial majority, meaning at least 60 percent, of consumers or communities where the item is sold. Below that line the claim needs a qualifier, and the weaker the access, the stronger the qualifier (16 CFR 260.12(b)) ^[1].

At the FTC's 2023 workshop on recyclable claims, the manager of Arlington County's recycling program put it this way:

"Recycling, we're talking about it and we're talking about national policy and guidance. It's actually very parochial."

California sets its own test. Under SB 343, a material type and form must be collected by programs covering at least 60 percent of the state's population and sorted by facilities serving at least 60 percent of recycling programs ^[7]. Separate design criteria bar components that prevent recyclability. Those labeling restrictions were due to take effect on 4 October 2026. On 14 July 2026, the federal district court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the Attorney General's enforcement (California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 3:26-cv-01675) ^[7]. The court found four provisions likely too vague, including the design criteria; the 60/60 requirement itself was not challenged as vague. The order is preliminary, and the court noted the statute can also be enforced by local prosecutors and private parties. CalRecycle states its study can't, by itself, decide whether a specific product is recyclable ^[9]. That sits with the manufacturer. Read the pause as time to finish evidence work, not permission to restore unsupported claims.

The UK uses a different yardstick again. Under RAM 2027, a green rating at the collection stage needs kerbside collection by at least 75 percent of UK local authorities, and producers can assess packaging as one integrated item or as separate components. PackUK is explicit that RAM ratings are not related to other recyclability labelling on the pack, and it tells producers to consider RAM ratings alongside the Competition and Markets Authority's Green Claims Code ^[10]. A green RAM rating is a fee input. It is not an approved on pack claim.

For the US, Packgine's Recyclability Assessment scores each component against more than 50 US materials recovery facility (MRF) profiles, then applies How2Recycle criteria and SB 343 claim standards as pass or fail filters, showing which component drags the pack down. Those profiles describe US infrastructure; UK and EU assessments follow their own methodologies. Whether the final wording is lawful stays with counsel.

"Made with recycled plastic" is missing a number

The Green Guides allow an unqualified recycled content claim only when the entire package, minor incidental components aside, is made from recycled material. Anything less needs the amount or percentage by weight (16 CFR 260.13(c)) ^[2]. The Guides' own example fits this pack. A paperboard box made of recycled material sits inside a plastic cover that isn't, and a "recycled packaging" claim is deceptive because it suggests both are. Limiting it to the box fixes it.

So the honest version names the bottle and a percentage, backed by a document. In the composite, the only paper on file was a supplier range brochure saying the bottle line contains "up to 30 percent" recycled content. "Up to" is a ceiling, not a figure, and a range statement doesn't tie to the resin grade or site you actually receive. We covered how to grade that kind of document in Your Supplier File Is Full. That Is Not the Same as Usable. It fails.

The team held the recycled content line off artwork until a certificate covering the resin grade, the named site and the claim period arrived. The Recyclability Assessment logs PCR percentages and verifies them against supplier certificates, so the number on pack and the certificate behind it sit in one record.

Four readings, one piece of artwork

The FTC asks for qualification: say which component, where and how much. California adds statewide thresholds. The UK prices recyclability through RAM and polices claims through consumer law. The EU adds outright prohibitions, and PPWR separately bars labels, marks or symbols likely to mislead consumers about packaging sustainability requirements for which it sets harmonised labelling, with that harmonised label applying from 12 August 2028 at the earliest ^[5].

At the provisional deal on the directive, Parliament's rapporteur put it plainly:

"we are clearing the chaos of environmental claims, which will now have to be substantiated"

One unqualified sentence on global artwork is a bet that every market reads it the same way. The safer choices are one conservative wording that clears the strictest market, or a small set of market variants.

What the approved claim looks like

The signed record read like this:

An approval without an expiry is a future incident with a signature on it. If your launch process runs compliance gates, this record belongs at the artwork gate.

What reopens an approved claim

Three events should reopen it. The first is a specification or supplier change on a covered component. A two gram preform change that marketing never hears about can still move a recyclability score or a recycled content percentage, which is the story in The Two Grams Nobody Reported. The second is a rule change in any market where the claim runs. Right now that list includes a live SB 343 case, a RAM that PackUK updates every year and PPWR labelling rules that wait on implementing acts. The third is the expiry date.

Your claims register can be a simple controlled document, as long as it stays connected to the specs. In Packgine's Packaging Specification Hub, every spec change is versioned, timestamped and attributed, and supersede workflows keep downstream systems pointed at the active version. When a state updates its accepted materials list, the Recyclability Assessment rescores affected SKUs and alerts the brand owner. Packgine holds the record the claim depends on. The approval, and the judgement behind it, stays with your team and your counsel.

Start with the last three claims you approved

For each one, write down the component it actually covers, the markets it prints in and the date its evidence expires. A blank anywhere means that claim is running on trust.

Review one packaging claim against its evidence: bring us the bottle and the pump and we'll score each component before your next artwork round.

This article uses a composite example built from common packaging claim patterns. It is educational, not legal advice. Confirm current rules and case status with counsel before changing artwork.

Sources

1. FTC Green Guides, 16 CFR 260.12 (eCFR): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/section-260.12
2. FTC Green Guides, 16 CFR 260.13 (eCFR): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/section-260.13
3. Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EUR-Lex): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202400825
4. Directive 2005/29/EC, Art. 5(5): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2005/29/article/5/data.htm
5. Regulation (EU) 2025/40, PPWR (EUR-Lex): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj/eng
6. EUR-Lex summary, packaging and packaging waste: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/packaging-and-packaging-waste-from-2026.html
7. Preliminary injunction order, No. 3:26-cv-01675 (S.D. Cal., 14 July 2026): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.847791/gov.uscourts.casd.847791.24.0.pdf
8. CalRecycle, SB 54 Covered Material Category List: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/129525
9. CalRecycle, SB 343 FAQ: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/131148
10. PackUK, RAM 2027 overview (GOV.UK): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assess-packaging-recyclability-recyclability-assessment-methodology-ram-2027/ram-2027-overview
11. European Parliament press release, 19 September 2023: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230918IPR05412/
12. FTC workshop transcript, 23 May 2023, p. 6: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Talking-Trash-at-the-FTC-Recyclable-Claims-and-the-Green-Guides.pdf