After a year of accelerating regulatory shifts and rising operational pressure, 2026 is shaping up to be a reset moment for CPG packaging strategy.
This past year has forced brands to rethink packaging through a much more rigorous – and sometimes uncomfortable – lens, according to Gillian Garside-Wight, director of consulting at sustainable packaging consultant Aura.
EPR moves from theory to reality
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is one of the most influential changes for the industry in 2025 – not necessarily for brands, but for packaging progress as a whole, Garside-Wight said.
EPR laws require brands to report detailed packaging data and pay material-based fees, pushing CPGs to be more accountable and make data-driven packaging decisions that balance sustainability, compliance and cost.
EPR data reporting began in 2025 in Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota and California, creating a significant shift in expectations, Garside-Wight explained. Data collection involves producers collecting and reporting detailed information, like material type, recyclability and weight, on packaging.
“For the industry, that is a huge change,” she said. But for CPG brands, it hasn’t been a warmly welcomed one, largely because of the “substantial fees” already taking effect in some states, with more still to come,” she added.
Still, she’s said the upside is legitimate. The influx of data gives brands the baselines they need to understand the impact of their packaging systems and make decisions grounded in something more meaningful than assumptions.
“With data comes knowledge,” and that knowledge enables companies to “strive forward and make meaningful differences,” she added.
Material innovation gains new urgency
With regulatory pressure increasing, Garside-Wight said industry has a renewed focus on recyclable solutions, including recyclable plastics and compostable options.
Mono-materials – single polymers – are particularly important contributors to a circular economy as laminated or mixed plastics are much harder to recycle. She also highlighted the role of barrier coatings, which allow mono-materials to perform as well as multi-material options while remaining recyclable.
Material changes, she cautioned, can affect production lines and total cost of goods, so brands must balance sustainability benefits with commercial feasibility.
Regulatory pressure isn’t limited to EPR
Beyond EPR, Garside-Wight says that 2024–2025 brought a wave of regulatory changes. Material shortages, which are already a challenge, become more complex when the rules shift around what’s acceptable, recyclable or accurately labeled.
California’s SB 343, the “Truth in Labeling” bill, for example, will be significant. The bill prohibits false recycling claims, banning certain recycling symbols unless the material is recyclable in at least 60% of the state’s recycling programs.
Garside-Wight was blunt about its impact. It’s “probably slightly scary to most CPGs,” she said.
The bill targets everything from recycling symbols to sustainability language that may cross into greenwashing. After more than a decade of lax or ambiguous claims across the industry, enforcement is here with legal implications.
Connected packaging and QR codes
Garside-Wight also highlighted the rise of connected packaging as a way to communicate more effectively with consumers. In the US, QR codes are being used to show whether packaging is recyclable at a local level.
In Europe, digital product passports, often accessed via QR codes, convey product provenance, recyclability and sustainability information. She predicts the use of QR codes will grow globally, evolving beyond marketing to provide a total picture of the product and packaging for consumers.
2026: The year of balancing sustainability, compliance and affordability
The brands who succeed in 2026 will be the ones that refuse to treat these legislations as isolated buckets, argued Garside-Wight.
“It’s about evaluating total cost of goods and total impact of goods on the environment,” she said.
That requires accurate data – something California’s SB 54 and EPR programs support by design.
In other words, compliance and sustainability can’t be separated anymore, and affordability depends on making smarter decisions early rather than reacting to penalties or market shifts later.
Trust becomes the most valuable brand asset
The rise of enforcement also means consumers will be navigating a much clearer landscape in 2026. Garside-Wight believes this next era will demand far more open, honest communication from brands – both about what they’re doing well and where they’re still working to improve.
“There’s been an awful lot of greenwashing over the last decade,” she said. Now, those same claims are becoming legal cases in California and parts of Europe. For food and beverage CPGs, this represents both a challenge and an opportunity.
Brand trust, she emphasized, will become a differentiator. Not trust rooted in lofty sustainability language, but in transparent, truthful communication.
“If it’s not got a positive impact, then the most responsible thing to do is to communicate that and say what you’re working on,” she said.
Where packaging innovation heads next
If 2024–2025 was the year CPGs were forced to gather the right data, 2026 will be the year they start using it strategically.
Based on the themes Garside-Wight highlighted, packaging innovation in 2026 will be shaped by:
- Data-driven packaging decisions anchored in new EPR reporting requirements
- Design changes influenced by SB 343, especially around recyclability claims and removal of misleading marks
- A focus on mono-materials, recyclable plastics and barrier coatings to improve circularity
- Increasing use of connected packaging and QR codes to communicate provenance, sustainability and recyclability
- Stronger alignment between cost, compliance and environmental impact – versus treating these as separate workstreams
- More conservative, accurate sustainability marketing, driven by legal risk
- A renewed emphasis on consumer trust, with brands communicating both progress and limitations honestly
