Packaging has to do two jobs in one glance. It has to sell the product, and it has to make sustainability claims clear enough to act on. Shoppers run into “recyclable,” “made with recycled content” and similar language all the time. Most don’t have the context to translate it, and few want to stop and research it in the aisle.
The confusion shoppers experience isn't a failure of any individual brand. Instead, it reflects the lack of market education around what these claims mean.
New findings from the ALPLA 2026 Packaging Claims Reality Check Report show how unclear sustainability claims shape shopper behavior at the shelf and how consumer confusion can weaken trust in the brands using them. Gen Z and Millennials are more likely than any other generation to let sustainability signals drive their purchase decisions. They’re also the most likely to feel confused by the language, and the most likely to walk away when it falls short.
To understand how consumers interpret common packaging claims and what they do when a claim feels unclear, ALPLA surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults ages 21+ in April 2026 using the third-party survey platform Pollfish.
Key Findings of the ALPLA 2026 Packaging Claims Reality Check Report
Sustainability Claims Are Everywhere, But They’re Speaking a Language Shoppers Haven’t Learned
Walk down any aisle and you can see how fast sustainability language has become standard packaging copy.
In the past six months, 89% of U.S. adults say they have seen an eco-friendly or sustainability message on packaging. Of those, 66% say they saw it more than three times, 18% saw it two to three times and 5% saw it once. Only 11% say they have not seen it at all.
That kind of repetition makes these claims a familiar part of the shopping experience as people compare price, brand, flavor and size.
What Do Sustainability Claims on Packaging Actually Mean? Shoppers Aren’t Sure
The problem is what happens in the split second after a shopper notices the claim.
More than half (53%) say they have felt unsure what a sustainability claim meant at least sometimes – and for 25%, that confusion is a regular experience: 15% say it happens often and 10% say very often. Another 28% say sometimes. Seeing these claims constantly hasn't made them easier to decode.
That uncertainty isn’t evenly spread across age groups. Younger shoppers are more likely to encounter the claim, notice it and then hit a moment of doubt right in the aisle.
Gen Z grew up caring about these labels rather than ignoring them. However, caring about something and being equipped to interpret it are two different things. A majority (51%) of Gen Z say they feel unsure what the messaging means often or very often, compared with 41% of Millennials, 22% of Gen X and 16% of Boomers.
Once doubt creeps in, shoppers still have to make a decision and they rarely have time to research a label in the aisle. So they fill in the meaning themselves, either tuning the claim out or reading into it. Either way, the claim stops working as clear information and can set up skepticism later when shoppers learn the phrase meant something narrower than they assumed.
What Shoppers Assume “Recyclable” and “Recycled Content” Mean
Even in their own uncertainty, many shoppers believe they understand sustainability claims better than most.
Nearly half (49%) say they understand sustainability claims better than the average shopper, including 15% who say much better and 34% who say somewhat better. Only 6% say they understand claims somewhat worse than average.
When they see eco-friendly messages, 25% say they understand most of them and could explain them, and 49% say they understand some but not all. Only 12% say they have seen these messages but aren’t sure what they mean, while 8% say they usually ignore them and 6% say they rarely notice them.
When the survey tested the word “recyclable,” it became clear that shoppers don’t all read a label the same way. Under U.S. guidance, an unqualified “recyclable” claim is generally tied to whether recycling programs that accept the item are available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where it’s sold. In that context, it makes sense that about 36% interpret “recyclable” to mean their local recycling program accepts the package.
Where interpretation stretches further is when “recyclable” gets treated as an outcome guarantee. Another 35% take a more limited view, saying it can be recycled somewhere but not always locally, while 15% treat it as a promise that the package will definitely be recycled once thrown away. 11% just read it as a general “better for the environment” signal and 3% say they aren’t sure what it means. Put together, the majority (64%) attach a meaning to “recyclable” that goes beyond local acceptance.
“Made with recycled content” also gets interpreted in a few different ways, and almost half make assumptions that go beyond what the phrase actually means.
Despite 54% correctly assuming it means the package is made partly from recycled materials, a large share reads more into it. 28% think it means the package is made entirely from recycled materials. Another 9% take it to mean the package can be recycled again and 6% read it as a broader environmental benefit, with 3% saying they aren’t sure. Taken together, 46% attach a meaning that goes beyond partly made from recycled materials, echoing the same pattern seen with “recyclable.”
The generational split shows where misunderstanding is most concentrated. For Gen Z, 51% assume the package is made entirely from recycled materials – nearly double the overall rate. That matters because it means the audience most likely to notice and weigh sustainability cues is also the most likely to over-interpret what “recycled content” is claiming.
When shoppers fill in the meaning themselves, the label stops being information and starts functioning like a promise – one the brand never actually made.
How Sustainable Packaging Claims Influence What Shoppers Buy
Sustainability language does more than decorate the package. It can tip a decision.
When shoppers compare otherwise similar products, 41% say eco-friendly messages make them more likely to choose the product with that message. Another 48% say it does not affect their choice, 6% say it makes them less likely to choose it and 5% say they usually don’t notice eco-friendly messages.
The lift is strongest among younger shoppers. 58% of Gen Z say eco-friendly messages make them more likely to choose a product, compared with 49% of Millennials, 38% of Gen X and 35% of Boomers. The oldest members of Gen Z are turning 28-29 this year. They’re entering their peak earning years with spending power they didn’t have five years ago, and that spending power is increasingly being directed by values they formed young. In the same aisle, the same claim can function as a real differentiator for younger shoppers and a neutral detail for older ones.
When Eco-Friendly Packaging Claims Backfire: 64% of Gen Z Shoppers Have Skipped a Purchase
When a claim feels unclear or hard to believe, it can interrupt the purchase instead of supporting it.
About 33% of all shoppers say they have skipped buying a product because a sustainability claim felt unclear or hard to believe, including 5% many times, 15% a few times and 13% once or twice. That number climbs sharply for younger consumers: 64% of Gen Z say they have skipped a purchase for this reason, compared with 50% of Millennials, 31% of Gen X and 21% of Boomers. The group most likely to be influenced by eco language is the same group most likely to walk away when that language feels shaky.
Claim stacking adds another layer. When plastic packaging includes more than one sustainability claim, 40% of Gen Z say it makes them trust the product more, compared to 21% overall. Another 33% of Gen Z say it makes them take a closer look at whether the claims add up. For younger audiences, multiple claims read as evidence of genuine commitment, provided those claims are clearly explained.
From Ambivalence to Opportunity
Confusion isn’t the whole story. A lot of shoppers read sustainability language as marketing first, information second. Unfortunately for brands, the most common response to that framing is ambivalence.
About 44% agree that most claims are more about marketing than helping consumers make better choices, including 14% who strongly agree and 30% who somewhat agree. Only 12% disagree. Another 44% land in the middle, saying some claims are helpful and others are not.
That 44% in the middle is meaningful. These shoppers haven’t written off sustainability claims and are still open to being persuaded. They’ve decided the quality is inconsistent rather than the labels being meaningless.
After feeling misled or suspicious of a sustainability claim, 22% say they looked for more information before buying again. Others move straight to consequences: 17% say they avoided buying the product again, 16% say they trusted the brand less afterward and 13% shared concerns with friends or family. Meanwhile, 21% say it didn’t change their opinion and 29% say they have not felt misled or suspicious of a packaging claim.
Generational differences, once again, sharpen the trust picture. 62% of Gen Z agrees that claims feel more like marketing, compared with 54% of Millennials, 41% of Gen X and 38% of Boomers. Gen Z is also more likely to report a stronger reaction after feeling misled, with 38% saying they trusted the brand less afterward compared with 10% of Boomers.
Packaging type becomes a credibility cue when shoppers are deciding what to believe. When the same sustainability message appears across different package types, 40% say they would trust it most on a cardboard package, while another 40% say they would trust all package types equally. Hard plastic (6%) and soft plastic (8%) draw far less default trust.
For plastic packaging specifically, this perception deficit means even legitimate, accurate sustainability claims are starting at a disadvantage. Closing that gap requires more than a label. It takes the kind of consumer education that helps shoppers understand what makes a specific plastic packaging format a responsible choice relative to alternatives and over the full product lifecycle. That’s precisely the work that platforms like Plastic Reimagined are designed to do, connecting Life Cycle Analysis data to the everyday decisions shoppers are already making at the shelf.
What Shoppers Want Brands to Do
When consumers explain why sustainability claims fall flat, they describe overload rather than a lack of interest.
32% say there are too many different labels and certifications to keep track of, and 30% say shoppers don't have time to read or research claims in the aisle. Smaller shares point to deeper skepticism, with 14% saying claims are too vague to mean anything and 13% saying most people don’t believe the claims are honest. Only 11% say there is no real problem and most claims work fine as they are.
When asked what would rebuild trust, shoppers kept coming back to plain language and practical direction.
Nearly half (48%) say brands should explain what the claim actually means in simple terms. 44% want clearer, plain-language wording on the package and 44% want specific disposal instructions for after use. After that, the priorities drop off: 22% want claims to be more consistent across a product line, 21% want specific facts and numbers, and 20% want either a recognized third-party certification or a QR code for more details. Only 13% say none of these would make them trust claims more.
When a sustainability claim is easy to understand, 25% say it makes them view the brand much more positively and 34% say somewhat more positively – a combined 59% lift. Clarity rarely backfires, and it often improves brand perception.
A Consumer Case for Labeling Consistency
The confusion documented in the ALPLA 2026 Packaging Claims Reality Check Report isn’t simply a communication failure by individual brands. It’s a knowledge and clarity problem in how sustainability claims are communicated and understood at the shelf.
In the U.S., “recyclable” claims are shaped by FTC guidance, but consumer understanding of what that term means in practice is inconsistent. The result is predictable: consumers receive the same word across many packages and build a meaning that doesn’t always match how the claim is intended to be used.
Clarity and consistency in claim language matter because shoppers are actively confused and that affects trust and purchase decisions. When common terms like “recyclable” and “made with recycled content” are misunderstood, even accurate claims can be misinterpreted, increasing the chance a shopper hesitates or skips a purchase.
California is already moving to turn consistency into law. The state’s Truth in Labeling law, SB 343, takes effect in October of this year, pending a preliminary injunction. It’s the first state law to set design criteria for recyclability claims, built around the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) Design Guide, and it will stop packaging from using the word “recyclable” or the chasing arrows symbol unless the package actually meets those standards.
The federal response tells a similar story. Last year, Congress introduced the PACK Act, a bill that would set a national standard for environmental packaging claims and preempt state laws like SB 343. Supporters see it as a way to avoid a state-by-state patchwork of rules that leaves brands and shoppers guessing. Whether that federal standard passes or states keep writing their own rules, the pattern holds. Sustainability claims are headed toward clearer definitions and less room for shoppers to fill in the blanks themselves.
What This Means in the Aisle
The ALPLA 2026 Packaging Claims Reality Check Report shows how sustainability claims are working in the real world: they’re widely seen, acted on and interpreted in very different ways. For brands, that creates a narrow window where a claim can either build confidence or trigger doubt, often before a shopper has even finished reading the label.
Shoppers often treat claims as shorthand for bigger ideas – like whether it’s meaningfully “better” or whether the end-of-life outcome is basically handled for them. Once a claim gets read that way, it stops being a simple cue and starts functioning like a promise. When the promise feels unclear, shoppers compensate in predictable ways. Some hesitate. Some walk away. Some move forward with assumptions that shape what they buy and how they dispose of the package later.
The generation most influenced by sustainability messaging is also the generation most likely to disengage when it falls short. The 44% of shoppers sitting in a “some are good, some aren’t” holding pattern represent a large audience that hasn’t been won or lost. It can go either way depending on what brands do next.
What those consumers are asking for isn’t complicated. They want clearer, plain-language wording on the package and specific disposal instructions for after use. Brands that meet that standard will be better positioned with regulators, retail partners and the consumers paying the most attention.
Survey Methodology
ALPLA used the third-party survey platform Pollfish to conduct an online survey in April 2026 of 1,000 U.S. adults. Generational results are reported across Gen Z (ages 21-29), Millennials (ages 30-45), Gen X (ages 46-61) and Boomers (ages 62+). Researchers reviewed all responses for quality control.