Plastic neutrality vs. plastic-free

Understanding the spectrum of plastic commitments

As pressure mounts on brands to address plastic pollution, three distinct commitment levels have emerged in corporate sustainability communications: plastic-free, plastic neutral, and plastic negative. Each carries different implications for investment, verification standards, and the claims that can legitimately be made to consumers and regulators. Conflating them — or applying them loosely — exposes companies to significant legal and reputational risk in an era of tightening green claims enforcement across the EU, UK, and US.

Plastic-free: the elimination standard

Plastic-free means eliminating plastic entirely from a product or its packaging. In practice, this is an extremely high bar. Many plastic substitutes — glass, aluminium, paper-based composites — carry higher carbon footprints per unit of functional performance, and some food safety, hygiene, and shelf-life requirements cannot currently be met without plastic. Credible plastic-free claims therefore typically apply to specific product lines or packaging components rather than to an entire brand portfolio.

The A Plastic Planet Plastic Free Certified mark is one of the few third-party verified plastic-free certification schemes, requiring demonstrably zero plastic in consumer-facing packaging. Claims of plastic-free without equivalent third-party certification are increasingly challenged by regulators in both the EU and UK. The distinction between plastic-free packaging and a plastic-free product must also be clearly communicated — the former is a narrower claim that says nothing about the product composition itself.

Plastic neutral: the offset mechanism

Plastic neutral means that for every kilogram of plastic a company places on the market or uses in its operations, an equivalent kilogram is collected and responsibly managed through a verified plastic credit programme. This is structurally analogous to carbon neutrality claims, and, like carbon neutrality, its credibility depends entirely on the quality of the underlying credits and the rigour of the footprint measurement against which offsets are applied.

Credible plastic neutral commitments must follow the sequence: measure, then reduce, then offset the remainder. Programmes where brands purchase credits without first quantifying and actively reducing their footprint are increasingly characterised as greenwashing under the EU Green Claims Directive and the UK Green Claims Code. The offset is intended to address the residual plastic impact after meaningful reduction effort — not to substitute for redesign and supplier engagement.

Plastic negative: beyond neutrality

Plastic negative — also described as plastic positive by some programmes — means collecting or funding the collection of more plastic from the environment than the company places on the market in a given period. This is a frontier commitment adopted by a small number of large technology and consumer companies. Dell Technologies has pledged to use more recycled or recovered ocean-bound plastic in products than it ships. HP Inc. has committed to recovering more plastic than it uses across its product portfolio by 2030. Plastic negative commitments require substantial long-term investment in collection infrastructure, secure offtake agreements with project developers, and a robust, audited measurement framework.

The legal landscape for green claims

Regulatory frameworks governing plastic sustainability claims have tightened substantially since 2021, and brands must navigate an increasingly complex multi-jurisdictional environment:

• UK Green Claims Code (2021): Issued by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), this code requires that environmental claims be truthful, clear, not misleading, substantiated by robust evidence, and fair in their comparison. Claims must reflect the full life cycle impact of a product, not a single favourable dimension. The CMA has investigated multiple brands and required claim amendments or withdrawal.
• EU Green Claims Directive (2024): Adopted in principle in 2024, with application expected from 2026, this directive prohibits generic environmental claims — including eco-friendly, green, sustainable, and equivalent terms — without substantiation meeting defined criteria. Claims based on offsetting, including plastic offsetting, must disclose the nature and scope of the offsetting scheme, the percentage of total impact covered, and the standard against which credits are verified.
• FTC Green Guides (revision pending): The US Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, last updated in 2012, are under active revision. Draft updates are expected to introduce heightened substantiation requirements for recycled content and environmental benefit claims, with implications for plastic neutral claims in the US market.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has issued rulings against brands making unsubstantiated ocean plastic or plastic neutral claims in advertising, including cases where the plastic footprint methodology was not independently verified or where credits used did not meet the claimed standard. These rulings establish an important enforcement precedent that regulators in other jurisdictions are tracking closely.

What brands can and cannot legitimately claim

Under current regulatory guidance, brands can legitimately state:

• We have offset X kilograms of plastic through [named, verified programme] — provided credit retirement is documented and the programme is independently audited.
• This product packaging contains Y% certified recycled plastic — if substantiated by chain-of-custody documentation from a recognised certification scheme.
• Plastic neutral certified by [named body] — if the certification is current, granted by a credible third-party body, and its scope clearly applies to the specific product or entity described in the claim.

Brands cannot legitimately claim:

• Unqualified plastic neutral without disclosing the methodology, the certifying body, and the scope of the claim (product-level, brand-level, or company-level).
• Plastic-free if any plastic is present in primary, secondary, or tertiary packaging encountered by the consumer.
• Sustainable packaging without specifying which sustainability dimension — recyclability, recycled content, reduced weight, or another — is addressed.

Certification bodies and ISO label types

ISO 14024 Type I eco-labels are third-party certified labels based on multiple criteria assessed across a product life cycle — the most rigorous category of environmental label under ISO's label taxonomy. No widely adopted ISO 14024 plastic neutral label yet exists at international scale. ISO 14021 Type II self-declarations allow brands to self-declare environmental attributes, but these must be truthful, substantiated by verifiable evidence, and not misleading. Most current plastic neutral claims are effectively Type II declarations.

Among third-party verified programmes, Natural Capital Partners' Plastic Neutral Certified and rePurpose Global's Plastic Neutral Certification are among the most recognised, each requiring documented footprint measurement, verified credit retirement, and annual third-party audit of the claims made. The Verra PWRS provides the underlying credit standard that many certification programmes draw on for credit integrity.

Real-world examples

Who Gives A Crap, the Australian tissue paper brand, was among the early adopters of plastic neutral certification through rePurpose Global, applying it across its entire packaging footprint and disclosing credit volumes in annual impact reports. Method (SC Johnson) has made plastic reduction and ocean-bound plastic recovery central to its brand identity, using Prevented Ocean Plastic-certified resin in product bottles backed by third-party verified supply chain documentation. Danone has made plastic neutral commitments for specific product ranges in selected markets, with credits purchased through verified programmes and disclosed under its annual sustainability reporting, aligned with its CSRD obligations.

The recommended approach

The measure-reduce-offset hierarchy is non-negotiable for a legally defensible and credible commitment. A brand that purchases plastic credits without first quantifying its footprint cannot make a credible neutrality claim — and under the EU Green Claims Directive, increasingly cannot make it legally. The recommended sequence is unambiguous: establish a verified baseline measurement under a recognised methodology such as the Plastic Disclosure Project framework or Verra PWRS guidance; set absolute reduction targets aligned with EPR obligations; implement reduction actions through packaging redesign, material substitution, and supplier engagement; offset the residual footprint through credits meeting Verra PWRS or equivalent standards; document everything; have it externally verified; and only then make the claim — with full disclosure of its scope, the certifying body, and the credits used.