Businesses are proudly proclaiming their latest activities to become more sustainable, especially in the packaging industry. This is an exciting and positive trend, but there's a worrisome side as well, when sustainability claims become more about marketing than actual performance.

While environmental marketing claims often exaggerate the truth, I've run across some statements that stretch even the best imaginations. Specifically, I visited a Website that illustrated a closed-loop lifecycle for oxo-biodegradable polymers. The troubling part of the image was that carbon fossilization (creation of oil) was depicted in a scale comparable to the conversion of polymers. The average age of oil today is approximately 100 million years. Implying that fossilization occurs on a time scale even remotely relevant to the creation and consumption of packaging is misleading at best.

The proliferation of specious eco statements is a big concern, and it's companies that are taking credible steps to improve their operations or packaging that pay for the growing confusion in the marketplace and the resulting consumer cynicism. In today's business world, the environment is a new platform for competition. Ensuring that environmental claims are truthful and supported by transparent, credible science is essential.

There are two resources that should be considered when making eco claims: the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC); and the International Standards Organization (ISO).

While in need of updating, the FTC Green Guides provide guidance on making environmental claims. One of the most important points made is that environmental claims need to be substantiated. But how does one substantiate a claim that packaging is “sustainable” or “more sustainable”? The answer is that you can't. Sustainability is a systems concept that cannot be defined by a single attribute such as materials or energy renewability. To do so is inappropriate.

The ISO provides both general and specific guidance for environmental declarations (ISO 14021, 14025), including the fact that statements should be accurate and not misleading; they should also be substantiated and verified; and statements should not, either directly or by implication, exaggerate eco benefits.

On a more positive note, I recently received the executive summary of a lifecycle analysis done by a company that manufactures a packaging product. They were very careful to follow international standards and requested the use of public and transparent lifecycle inventory data for their analysis. While the study provided a valuable basis for making environmental claims for their product, it also uncovered some interesting cost savings related to the product that they didn't previously understand. I applaud their efforts in taking the time and making the investment to ensure that their claims are credible.

If the marketplace doesn't police itself on eco claims, there are trade groups or government agencies that will. The environmental platform presents a new opportunity, but remember: this is an opportunity to improve the way we do business for the future—not just an opportunity for the latest corporate marketing campaign.

434/817-1424, anne.johnson@greenblue.org