Reference guide
Sustainable Packaging Terminology
These words are used interchangeably in packaging and they are not interchangeable. Each commits you to a different statement, requires different evidence, and exposes you to different risk if you print it on a bag.
This guide defines them plainly and gives you the questions to ask about each. It is written to be used against any supplier, including us.
The terms, defined
Five words, five different statements. Read them as commitments rather than as adjectives.
Recycled content
A statement about where the material came from. It says nothing about what happens after use. Needs a feedstock type — post-consumer, post-industrial or blended — and a proportion, both evidenced.
Recyclable
A statement that the material can be collected and reprocessed. It depends on infrastructure available to your customer, not on the material alone. Flexible film is generally not accepted kerbside in the markets we serve.
Compostable
A statement that the material breaks down in a specific managed process. Industrial and home composting are assessed differently, and a material may meet one and not the other. Requires an assessment and a route the customer can actually reach.
Biodegradable
A statement that microorganisms will break the material down. Meaningless without named conditions, a completeness measure and a timeframe, because almost everything biodegrades eventually under some conditions.
Degradable or oxo-degradable
A statement that the material fragments. Fragmentation is not biodegradation, and additive-based fragmentation has attracted specific regulatory concern in several markets.
What each claim requires you to hold
Before printing any of these, check you could produce the middle column if asked.
| Claim | Evidence needed | Who it depends on |
|---|---|---|
| Contains recycled content | Feedstock type, proportion, supplier declaration or certificate | The film supplier |
| Recyclable | Evidence the collection route exists where your customers are | Local waste infrastructure |
| Compostable | Assessment against a defined process, plus an available facility | Both the supplier and local infrastructure |
| Biodegradable | Named conditions, completeness, timeframe and an assessment method | The film supplier, comprehensively |
| Reduced material | Before and after weights from your own operation | Nobody — you can evidence this yourself |
The last row is the only one you can substantiate without anyone else’s cooperation, which is a good argument for making it your first sustainability claim rather than your last.
Interrogating a supplier claim
Five questions. A supplier who can answer all five has done the work; one who cannot has written marketing copy.
Which specific film does this apply to?
Not the range, not the website — the film that will be produced for my order.
What is the number, and is it a minimum or a target?
A proportion tied to my order, in writing on the quotation.
Which document supports it?
A declaration, a mill certificate or a third-party assessment. Ask to see it rather than be told it exists.
Under what conditions, and over what period?
For any degradation or composting claim. Without conditions, a timeframe means nothing.
Does it hold on reorder?
Content and material availability move between batches. Find out whether this is guaranteed or quoted per run.
Why the wording you print is your risk
A supplier can tell you what a film is. Only you can decide what to print on it, and once printed it becomes a statement you are making to your own customers in your own market.
Advertising and consumer-protection regimes across the markets we serve — the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia — all publish guidance on environmental claims, and unqualified degradation language is among the most frequently challenged. Guidance differs between them, which matters if the same printed bag ships to more than one.
The practical protection is to print only what you could evidence if asked, to qualify claims rather than leaving them open, and to give customers an instruction that works where they actually live rather than a symbol that implies a collection which may not exist for them.
Where to start if you want a real reduction
If the objective is a smaller environmental footprint rather than a word on a bag, material substitution is rarely the highest-leverage change available. Right-sizing so parcels stop shipping air, cutting the number of components per pack, and specifying a resealable closure so returns need no second bag all produce measurable results you can evidence from your own data. Our position on which claims we will and will not make is set out on the sustainability policy page.
Questions about the terminology guide
What is the difference between biodegradable and compostable?
Compostable refers to breakdown in a specific managed process with conditions attached and an assessment behind it. Biodegradable, used unqualified, refers to breakdown by microorganisms under unstated conditions over an unstated period. The first can be verified; the second cannot.
Does recycled content mean a mailer is recyclable?
No, and conflating the two is the most common error in this area. Recycled content is about where the material came from; recyclability is about whether your customer can get it collected. A mailer can have high recycled content and still have nowhere to go afterwards.
Can I print a recycling symbol on my packaging?
Only where it is accurate for the material and permitted in the market you sell into, and where a collection route genuinely exists for your customers. A symbol implying a collection that is not available causes more harm than no symbol.
Which claim is safest to make?
One about your own operation — reduced material per parcel, fewer components, a resealable bag that removes a returns consumable. You can evidence those from your own data without relying on anyone else’s documentation.