{"id":7880,"date":"2026-03-10T18:24:14","date_gmt":"2026-03-10T17:24:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nownewnext.nl\/beyond-buzzwords-how-packaging-claims-are-entering-the-transparency-era\/"},"modified":"2026-03-10T18:24:14","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T17:24:14","slug":"beyond-buzzwords-how-packaging-claims-are-entering-the-transparency-era","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nownewnext.nl\/en\/beyond-buzzwords-how-packaging-claims-are-entering-the-transparency-era\/","title":{"rendered":"Beyond Buzzwords: how packaging claims are entering the transparency era"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Emmilie Kuks, Sustainable Packaging Specialist<\/em><\/p>\n

I still turn that salad tray around while standing in front of the supermarket shelf. \u201cEco-friendly\u201d, \u201cplanet positive\u201d. Two logos. But what do they actually mean? And that is coming from someone who, as a packaging designer, reviews LCA analyses every week and practically knows the recycling infrastructure by heart. If even I do not fully understand it, what about everyone else who is just grabbing a quick lunch from the shelf? <\/p>\n

As it turns out, I am not the only one. European research shows that fewer than a third of consumers understand what common recycling symbols really mean. It is no surprise, then, that trust in green claims is eroding. And that is exactly where two new sets of rules come in. <\/p>\n

That confusion is precisely what the Green Claims Directive was designed to address. While the Dutch ACM guidelines have already been nudging us since 2023 to be \u201cspecific and factual\u201d, Brussels is now tightening the screws for real: every environmental claim will need to be approved by an independent auditor before publication, and vague language will be thrown out without hesitation. By 2027, this will be law across the EU. The penalty for misleading claims can reach up to four percent of annual turnover. That is no longer a communication slip-up, but a boardroom-level risk. <\/p>\n

So what is the point of claims?<\/strong><\/p>\n

More and more often, I hear the same question from brand owners: \u201cIs a claim even still worth it if we first have to pay for an expensive LCA and audit, without knowing whether it will actually make any difference to consumers?\u201d At the same time, we know that consumers, especially my generation, expect transparency. Saying nothing feels like staying silent. Making a vague claim feels like lying. So what does work?Vanuit merkeigenaren krijg ik steeds vaker dezelfde vraag: \u201cHeeft een claim nog wel zin als we eerst een dure LCA en audit moeten betalen, zonder dat we weten of het de consument uberhaubt iets doet?\u201d<\/strong> Tegelijkertijd weten we dat consumenten \u2013 vooral mijn generatie \u2013 transparantie eisen. Geen claim voelt als zwijgen. Een vage claim voelt als liegen. Dus wat dan w\u00e9l? <\/p>\n

Why I am still optimistic<\/strong><\/p>\n

Research from McKinsey and NIQ shows that products with hard, verifiable claims have grown faster in recent years than their competitors. It is not the wording that does the work, but the measurable performance behind it. Brands that are willing to communicate one concrete fact, such as \u201c70% recycled content\u201d or certified label marks, earn both trust and sales. Claim inflation fades. Clarity remains.Onderzoek van McKinsey & NIQ laat zien dat producten met harde, verifieerbare claims de afgelopen jaren sneller groeiden dan hun concurrenten. Niet de woorden doen het werk, maar de meetbare prestatie erachter. Merken die \u00e9\u00e9n concreet feit durven te communiceren (\u201c70 % recycled content\u201d of gecertificeerde keurmerklogo\u2019s) oogsten vertrouwen \u00e9n verkoop. Claim-inflatie dooft, helderheid blijft. <\/p>\n

What I focus on as a designer<\/strong><\/p>\n