Greenwashing in packaging: how not to fall into it
When eco-marketing becomes a risk for the brand
The problem usually doesn't surface immediately. Packaging with green accents and the word 'natural' passes through several approvals, ends up on the shelf, and initially everything looks normal. But then an inspection comes — or a blogger, or a journalist, or a competitor with a legal department. According to regulators, the share of deliberately misleading eco-statements increased in 2024. More than half of advertising market participants (51%) admit to regularly seeing greenwashing among their peers. This is no longer a marginal practice, but a widespread one, which is exactly why regulators have taken systematic action.
Rates have risen not only due to fines. According to studies in the field of ecological marketing, a significant portion of ecological claims on products turns out to be false or incomplete — and consumers feel this. A significant portion of consumers approach 'green' brands with skepticism due to repeated deception. Studies show that a significant portion of buyers cannot distinguish a genuine eco-product from a counterfeit — thus, trust goes to whoever proves their good faith first with documentary evidence, not to whoever shouts loudest about ecology.
Which phrases on packaging are greenwashing, and which can be proven
The boundary between honest and deceptive statement does not lie in the meaning of the word, but in the possibility of confirming it. "50% recycled material" is a specific, verifiable figure: it can be indicated on a certificate, and it can be demanded to be proven. "Biodegradable" without specifying conditions and timeframes is a phrase without content: everything is biodegradable, the question is only in how many years and in what environment. The new GOST R ISO 14020–2025 directly prohibits such non-specific formulations without confirmation—"eco-friendly", "green", "safe for nature" can no longer be used simply as beautiful words.
| Formulation | Status | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Packaging contains 50% recycled plastic" | Permissible | A specific figure, verified by the supplier's certificate |
| "Biodegradable" (without details) | Greenwashing | Conditions and timeframes of decomposition are not specified, consumer draws incorrect conclusions |
| "Composts in industrial conditions within 90 days" | Permissible | A specific condition, a specific timeframe, can be verified |
| "Eco-friendly product" | Greenwashing | An evaluative judgment without criteria and methodology |
| "Assembled from ocean bound plastic" | Gray zone | Technically correct, but sounds like "saved the ocean", although the plastic was collected on the shore |
Packaging material: what looks eco-friendly and what is truly eco-friendly
The most common trap is choosing the material 'by eye,' based on an intuitive feeling of naturalness. Tetra Pak looks like paper and is offered as an alternative to PET bottles, but it is a multi-layer composite made of cardboard, aluminum, and polymers. It is technically difficult to separate for recycling: in Russia, only five factories correctly handle this process, and in reality, most tetra pak ends up at landfills along with regular plastic. PET, despite its bad reputation, is recycled using a clear mono-material technology almost everywhere.
A similar story with bioplastic. The additive d2w, which manufacturers love to call 'oxidative biodegradation,' actually accelerates the breakdown of the polymer into micro-particles. These are not processed on regular lines, do not compost in household conditions, and ultimately almost always end up at landfills, where they decompose while releasing methane—a gas that is more harmful to climate than carbon dioxide. The material is formally 'biodegradable,' but in practice, it is worse than conventional plastic.
| Material | The claimed advantage | The hidden problem |
|---|---|---|
| Tetra Pak | "Paper", looks natural | Composite of 3 layers, recycling available at 5 factories in Russia |
| Bioplastic with d2w | "Breaks down faster" | Breaks down into microplastic, not accepted for recycling, landfill → methane |
| PET | "Ordinary plastic", bad reputation | Monomaterial, really recycled on a large scale |
| Paper cup | "Plastic-free" | Releases microplastic upon contact with hot drink |
The conclusion is simple and unpleasant for marketing: a solution that looks green on the shelf often turns out to be dirtier over its entire lifecycle. Before switching packaging "towards ecology", one should calculate not aesthetics, but the logistics of recycling a specific material in a specific region of brand presence.
Gray zone: truth that deceives
The most dangerous reputation cases are not blatant lies, but technically correct statements presented in a way that creates a false impression. Huggies Pure & Natural uses a small amount of organic cotton in the outer layer of the diaper — formally "contains organic cotton" truth, but the scale of the material on the packaging is visually greatly exaggerated. SC Johnson labeled the packaging as "ocean plastic", although the discussion was about "ocean bound plastic" — plastic collected in coastal zones, not pulled out of the ocean. Starbucks released a cap without a straw as an eco-friendly solution, although by mass of plastic it exceeded the old pair "lid + straw".
The general approach in all these cases is one and the same: a single positive attribute of the product is taken and presented as if it characterizes the entire product as a whole, with complete silence about the remaining 90% of the composition or process. This is exactly the area that GOST R ISO 14020–2025 attempts to cover, requiring not a single beautiful fact, but a systemic program with methodology and criteria for evaluating the entire lifecycle of packaging.
What GOST R ISO 14020–2025 changes and how to prepare for it
The standard came into effect and will be applied starting 1 June 2026 year, but preparation should begin now — rebranding the packaging line takes months. The key difference from previous practice: it is no longer sufficient to have the phrase 'eco-friendly' with a picture of a leaf. A system-based approach is required — a verifiable program, not a standalone marketing slogan.
- To fix a specific environmental criterion (percentage of secondary raw materials, volume of emissions, degradation period under given conditions) with a number, not an evaluative word.
- To indicate the methodology of measurement — according to which standard, by whom and when the assessment was conducted.
- To provide a verification mechanism — independent audit or certificate that can be checked by number.
- To accompany the statement with a clarification of conditions: where applicable, for which part of the packaging, under what environmental conditions.
- To avoid general adjectives («green», «clean», «nature-friendly») without a number and reference to confirmation next to them on the packaging.
A separate headache — imported goods. Monitoring by Roskachestvo in 2024 found signs of greenwashing in 16 largest networks and marketplaces, and most violators were products with English-language labeling, where eco-labeling was often copied from the original without checking whether it is valid on the territory of Russia and confirmed by an applicable certificate here. If a brand sells an imported line via a marketplace — it is worth rechecking each ecological badge separately, rather than transferring foreign labeling by default.
How to green the packaging legally — and not step on the landmines
Competitive advantage through eco-friendliness is still available, but getting it fairly is more difficult than drawing a leaf. What works is what can be verified by third-party audit:
- to indicate the share of secondary raw materials with an exact figure and a reference to the raw material supplier;
- to switch to monomaterials where real recycling is established in the region of operation, not where the material simply «sounds green»;
- to disclose at least part of the supply chain — where the raw materials come from, who the processor is, what percentage of packaging actually gets recycled in your region;
- to compare yourself not with the most harmful analog on the market, but with a real alternative that the buyer could have chosen;
- to indicate limitations openly: 'recycled in 5 regions' is more honest and convincing than silence on the matter.
The most common mistake of conscientious companies is not deception, but omission of the truth. A brand honestly indicates 'contains recycled plastic,' but does not specify that this is 10% of the composition, while the remaining 90% is virgin material. Formally true, but perceived as deception — and these are exactly the cases that the European Commission most often records: European Commission studies show that a significant portion of green claims made by companies contain vague or unsubstantiated information, and statements on websites are often exaggerated in relation to the actual effect. The rule is simple: if a fact is incomplete — a caveat should stand right next to it, not silence.
When eco-marketing becomes a risk for the brand
The problem usually doesn't surface immediately. Packaging with green accents and the word 'natural' passes through several approvals, ends up on the shelf, and initially everything looks normal. But then an inspection comes — or a blogger, or a journalist, or a competitor with a legal department. According to regulators, the share of deliberately misleading eco-statements increased in 2024. More than half of advertising market participants (51%) admit to regularly seeing greenwashing among their peers. This is no longer a marginal practice, but a widespread one, which is exactly why regulators have taken systematic action.
Rates have risen not only due to fines. According to studies in the field of ecological marketing, a significant portion of ecological claims on products turns out to be false or incomplete — and consumers feel this. A significant portion of consumers approach 'green' brands with skepticism due to repeated deception. Studies show that a significant portion of buyers cannot distinguish a genuine eco-product from a counterfeit — thus, trust goes to whoever proves their good faith first with documentary evidence, not to whoever shouts loudest about ecology.
Which phrases on packaging are greenwashing, and which can be proven
The boundary between honest and deceptive statement does not lie in the meaning of the word, but in the possibility of confirming it. "50% recycled material" is a specific, verifiable figure: it can be indicated on a certificate, and it can be demanded to be proven. "Biodegradable" without specifying conditions and timeframes is a phrase without content: everything is biodegradable, the question is only in how many years and in what environment. The new GOST R ISO 14020–2025 directly prohibits such non-specific formulations without confirmation—"eco-friendly", "green", "safe for nature" can no longer be used simply as beautiful words.
| Formulation | Status | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Packaging contains 50% recycled plastic" | Permissible | A specific figure, verified by the supplier's certificate |
| "Biodegradable" (without details) | Greenwashing | Conditions and timeframes of decomposition are not specified, consumer draws incorrect conclusions |
| "Composts in industrial conditions within 90 days" | Permissible | A specific condition, a specific timeframe, can be verified |
| "Eco-friendly product" | Greenwashing | An evaluative judgment without criteria and methodology |
| "Assembled from ocean bound plastic" | Gray zone | Technically correct, but sounds like "saved the ocean", although the plastic was collected on the shore |
Packaging material: what looks eco-friendly and what is truly eco-friendly
The most common trap is choosing the material 'by eye,' based on an intuitive feeling of naturalness. Tetra Pak looks like paper and is offered as an alternative to PET bottles, but it is a multi-layer composite made of cardboard, aluminum, and polymers. It is technically difficult to separate for recycling: in Russia, only five factories correctly handle this process, and in reality, most tetra pak ends up at landfills along with regular plastic. PET, despite its bad reputation, is recycled using a clear mono-material technology almost everywhere.
A similar story with bioplastic. The additive d2w, which manufacturers love to call 'oxidative biodegradation,' actually accelerates the breakdown of the polymer into micro-particles. These are not processed on regular lines, do not compost in household conditions, and ultimately almost always end up at landfills, where they decompose while releasing methane—a gas that is more harmful to climate than carbon dioxide. The material is formally 'biodegradable,' but in practice, it is worse than conventional plastic.
| Material | The claimed advantage | The hidden problem |
|---|---|---|
| Tetra Pak | "Paper", looks natural | Composite of 3 layers, recycling available at 5 factories in Russia |
| Bioplastic with d2w | "Breaks down faster" | Breaks down into microplastic, not accepted for recycling, landfill → methane |
| PET | "Ordinary plastic", bad reputation | Monomaterial, really recycled on a large scale |
| Paper cup | "Plastic-free" | Releases microplastic upon contact with hot drink |
The conclusion is simple and unpleasant for marketing: a solution that looks green on the shelf often turns out to be dirtier over its entire lifecycle. Before switching packaging "towards ecology", one should calculate not aesthetics, but the logistics of recycling a specific material in a specific region of brand presence.
Gray zone: truth that deceives
The most dangerous reputation cases are not blatant lies, but technically correct statements presented in a way that creates a false impression. Huggies Pure & Natural uses a small amount of organic cotton in the outer layer of the diaper — formally "contains organic cotton" truth, but the scale of the material on the packaging is visually greatly exaggerated. SC Johnson labeled the packaging as "ocean plastic", although the discussion was about "ocean bound plastic" — plastic collected in coastal zones, not pulled out of the ocean. Starbucks released a cap without a straw as an eco-friendly solution, although by mass of plastic it exceeded the old pair "lid + straw".
The general approach in all these cases is one and the same: a single positive attribute of the product is taken and presented as if it characterizes the entire product as a whole, with complete silence about the remaining 90% of the composition or process. This is exactly the area that GOST R ISO 14020–2025 attempts to cover, requiring not a single beautiful fact, but a systemic program with methodology and criteria for evaluating the entire lifecycle of packaging.
What GOST R ISO 14020–2025 changes and how to prepare for it
The standard came into effect and will be applied starting 1 June 2026 year, but preparation should begin now — rebranding the packaging line takes months. The key difference from previous practice: it is no longer sufficient to have the phrase 'eco-friendly' with a picture of a leaf. A system-based approach is required — a verifiable program, not a standalone marketing slogan.
- To fix a specific environmental criterion (percentage of secondary raw materials, volume of emissions, degradation period under given conditions) with a number, not an evaluative word.
- To indicate the methodology of measurement — according to which standard, by whom and when the assessment was conducted.
- To provide a verification mechanism — independent audit or certificate that can be checked by number.
- To accompany the statement with a clarification of conditions: where applicable, for which part of the packaging, under what environmental conditions.
- To avoid general adjectives («green», «clean», «nature-friendly») without a number and reference to confirmation next to them on the packaging.
A separate headache — imported goods. Monitoring by Roskachestvo in 2024 found signs of greenwashing in 16 largest networks and marketplaces, and most violators were products with English-language labeling, where eco-labeling was often copied from the original without checking whether it is valid on the territory of Russia and confirmed by an applicable certificate here. If a brand sells an imported line via a marketplace — it is worth rechecking each ecological badge separately, rather than transferring foreign labeling by default.
How to green the packaging legally — and not step on the landmines
Competitive advantage through eco-friendliness is still available, but getting it fairly is more difficult than drawing a leaf. What works is what can be verified by third-party audit:
- to indicate the share of secondary raw materials with an exact figure and a reference to the raw material supplier;
- to switch to monomaterials where real recycling is established in the region of operation, not where the material simply «sounds green»;
- to disclose at least part of the supply chain — where the raw materials come from, who the processor is, what percentage of packaging actually gets recycled in your region;
- to compare yourself not with the most harmful analog on the market, but with a real alternative that the buyer could have chosen;
- to indicate limitations openly: 'recycled in 5 regions' is more honest and convincing than silence on the matter.
The most common mistake of conscientious companies is not deception, but omission of the truth. A brand honestly indicates 'contains recycled plastic,' but does not specify that this is 10% of the composition, while the remaining 90% is virgin material. Formally true, but perceived as deception — and these are exactly the cases that the European Commission most often records: European Commission studies show that a significant portion of green claims made by companies contain vague or unsubstantiated information, and statements on websites are often exaggerated in relation to the actual effect. The rule is simple: if a fact is incomplete — a caveat should stand right next to it, not silence.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
