EcoVadis for the Packaging Industry: What the Rating Really Expects from You

27 Mar

The packaging industry is under triple pressure: the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), national plastic taxes, and customer groups asking for EcoVadis ratings as a condition of doing business. The useful thing is that these three demands overlap more than most companies realise. Get one of them right, and you've already built much of what the other two need.

I've worked with over 200 EcoVadis submissions since 2017, and the packaging industry has become one of my main focus sectors over the years. Across flexible films, cartonboard, rigid plastics, and labels, the pattern is consistent: the regulatory work and the EcoVadis work pull from the same evidence base. What changes is the format. Once you understand how to translate compliance data into EcoVadis answers, the marginal cost of the rating drops significantly.

Why EcoVadis assesses packaging manufacturers more strictly

EcoVadis customises its questionnaire by industry, size, and country. For packaging manufacturers, that customisation means the Environment theme carries more weight than it does for many other sectors. Product end-of-life is activated as a criterion, and the questionnaire goes deeper on materials, recycling, and design choices than it would for, say, a software company.

There are three reasons for this. The first is the material footprint of the industry. Pulp, aluminium, plastic granulates, inks, and coatings all sit in the supply chain, and each has its own sustainability profile. The second is regulatory exposure. Packaging is one of the most regulated product categories in the EU, and EcoVadis treats that as a signal that buyers will ask harder questions. The third is circular economy: packaging is where the EU's circular economy agenda is most visible, and the rating reflects that.

The result is a questionnaire that expects more from packaging manufacturers on Environment, on Sustainable Procurement, and on the product stewardship side of the assessment than from most other industries.

The three themes where packaging manufacturers lose the most EcoVadis points

Packaging is one of the industries I've worked with most consistently, and three weak spots come up in submission after submission.

Material efficiency and circular economy. This is where buyers and the methodology both push hardest. Recycled content rates, mono-material design, design for recycling, and closed-loop initiatives are all explicitly rewarded. Manufacturers often do real work on these topics but struggle to translate it into the evidence the rating asks for: quantitative KPIs over multiple years, formal design-for-recycling procedures, and documented targets that go beyond intent. The discipline of structuring KPIs consistently across reporting cycles is what makes that translation work.
There's also an honest industry reality here. Closed-loop recycling, where a manufacturer takes its own production waste or post-consumer material back into its production process, is something many companies are pushing on, but the logistics aren't always there yet. Collection, sorting, and re-integration into the same product line is genuinely difficult, and the evidence trail often shows ambition and pilots rather than fully embedded systems. That's worth acknowledging directly in the submission rather than overclaiming.
Customer health and safety. This is one of the most consistent gaps I see. Packaging manufacturers do a great deal of work on product safety because the regulatory environment forces them to: food contact regulations, migration limits, REACH, barrier coating compliance. But the work is done because compliance demands it, not because anyone is documenting it for sustainability reporting purposes. When I open the EcoVadis questionnaire and look at the customer health and safety options, the company has plenty of practices in place but very few documents that can be uploaded as evidence. The points get left on the table.
Sustainable Procurement. This pillar is consistently underestimated by first-time packaging clients. The raw materials in packaging (pulp, aluminium, plastic granulates) come with their own sustainability questions, and EcoVadis expects manufacturers to manage them at the supply chain level. More on this below.

PPWR and EcoVadis: where the work overlaps

The PPWR entered into force on 11 February 2025 and will generally apply from 12 August 2026. It replaces the older Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and, unlike the directive, applies directly across all EU member states without national transposition. (Source: European Commission)

The core obligations matter for EcoVadis because they map almost one-to-one onto what the rating already asks for. The PPWR covers recyclability, minimum recycled content, labelling, packaging minimisation, reuse, and refill-related obligations. From 2030, all packaging placed on the EU market must be designed for recyclability, and minimum recycled content thresholds for plastic packaging apply. By that point, minimum recycled content thresholds will apply to various plastic packaging types, ranging between 30% and 65%, depending on the category. The regulation also prohibits placing food-contact packaging on the market if it contains per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at or above specified concentration limits. (Source: Globalelr)

The synergy with EcoVadis is direct. The KPIs you will need to track for PPWR (recycled content percentages by material, recyclability grades, weight and volume optimisation, PFAS substitution progress) are exactly the kind of quantitative measures EcoVadis rewards in the Environment theme and in product stewardship.

A practical example: the recycled content data you collect for PPWR reporting feeds straight into the EcoVadis questions on material efficiency. The policy documents you produce to formalise your design-for-recycling approach for PPWR compliance can be uploaded as evidence under the Policies indicator. The procedures you set up to substitute PFAS in food contact applications become Actions and Measures evidence.

Companies that treat PPWR and EcoVadis as separate projects do the work twice. If your scorecard has been stuck at the same level across submissions despite consistent work, the cause is often a missing connection between the regulatory reporting and the EcoVadis evidence. Companies that build one evidence library and tag the same documents for both purposes save significant internal hours.

Sustainable Procurement: where packaging has industry-specific exposure

The Sustainable Procurement pillar gets weighted higher for packaging manufacturers than for many other industries, and it has some specifics that are worth understanding before you start.

Pulp and paper supply chains. Buyers will look for FSC or PEFC chain-of-custody certification on the materials, and EcoVadis will reward documented sourcing policies, supplier audits, and reporting on certified material shares. Carton and label manufacturers can usually score well here if they organise the evidence properly, because the certifications already exist in the supply chain.
Aluminium and bauxite supply chains. This is where the questionnaire often surprises companies. Bauxite sourcing can trigger conflict minerals questions in the procurement section, because aluminium supply chains intersect with regions where due diligence on minerals is expected. If you source aluminium for cans, foils, or laminates, expect to be asked about supplier traceability and human rights due diligence at the raw material level.
Plastic granulates and recyclates. Sourcing of virgin and recycled plastic comes with its own set of supplier questions: where does the material come from, how is recycled content certified, what are your suppliers' own sustainability practices. Mass balance certification (such as ISCC Plus) is becoming a recurring topic in EcoVadis evidence for packaging manufacturers using recyclates.
Inks, coatings, and adhesives. Barrier coatings, in particular for grease and moisture resistance in food applications, are an area EcoVadis examines closely. The question is not whether your coatings are safe (regulation already handles that) but whether you can document your sourcing decisions, your substitution programmes for substances of concern, and your alignment with food contact safety frameworks.

The certifications that move the most points

Certifications carry significant weight in EcoVadis because they're independently verified. For packaging manufacturers, the most useful ones depend on your sub-sector and geography. The list below covers the standards I see most often in scoring work; not all of them are relevant for every company, and some are more country-specific than others.

FSC and PEFC: chain-of-custody certifications for wood-based materials. Strong scoring lever for paper, board, and label manufacturers, and increasingly expected by buyers.
ISO 14001: environmental management system. The single most widely recognised certification in EcoVadis Environment scoring, and broadly applicable across all packaging sub-sectors.
ISO 45001: occupational health and safety management. Often paired with ISO 14001 in evidence.
ISCC Plus: mass balance certification for sustainable and recycled feedstocks, particularly relevant for plastic packaging using recyclates.
Cradle to Cradle: product-level certification covering material health, recyclability, and circularity. Strong fit where packaging is positioned as a sustainability differentiator.
Blauer Engel: ecolabel relevant primarily in Germany and German-speaking markets. Useful when the customer base is concentrated there.

I work with packaging clients across Europe, the Americas, and APAC, and the right combination of certifications is usually country and customer-specific. A North American supplier exporting to German retailers will need a different mix from a Spanish manufacturer serving local food brands.

What packaging manufacturers reaching Platinum do differently

The packaging manufacturers I've seen reach Platinum (the top 1% of EcoVadis-rated companies globally) share three traits.

A focus on circular economy as strategy, not as marketing. Recycled content targets are written into business plans, design-for-recycling is built into product development, and closed-loop pilots are funded as part of operational budgets. The submission is downstream of the strategy, not a one-off effort for the rating.
A structured sustainability management system. Policies, procedures, KPIs, and reporting cycles are built as a system, not as a collection of documents pulled together once a year. The same data flows into the sustainability report, the EcoVadis submission, customer questionnaires, and PPWR reporting. Knowing how to read your scorecard properly is the starting point for that integration
A clear material focus. Recyclable and recycled materials are tracked at product line level, with documented progression year on year. The KPIs are public, the targets are quantitative, and the gap analysis is honest.

The advice I give to packaging manufacturers receiving their first customer request is straightforward: start with the sustainability management system, not with product changes. The system makes everything else possible. Without it, even strong product improvements struggle to translate into points.

What my packaging clients say

“Working with Judith was a real accelerator for our EcoVadis assessment.
She quickly understood our business context and translated EcoVadis requirements into what really matters.
Her clear thinking, smart prioritization and hands-on guidance helped us turn sustainability ambitions into concrete actions.
She made the process practical, efficient and results-driven, which directly contributed to a strong EcoVadis outcome.
Her pragmatic way of working made a real difference.”

KTPconTeyor

“Canpack has been working with Judith since 2019 on various sustainability projects. Together we’ve been setting up our sustainability policies, our first sustainability report and have implemented a range of sustainability measures. In 2021, we also worked together to determine our carbon emission reduction targets which were subsequently approved by the Science Based Target initiative.

Thanks to Judith’s help we have managed to get our EcoVadis score from Bronze to Platinum and have therefore recommended her to our sister company in the US.”

Canpack

“Kemi Limited, especially Judith Ruppert-Zoltowski, worked with us for several years as a consultant on sustainability topics. Judith provided us with assistance in the EcoVadis assessment, including carbon footprint reporting, policies adjustment, KPI measurement and sustainability reporting. We had an intention to improve our sustainability performance and to make this process transparent for our stakeholders, and Kemi helped us in both directions. Moreover, Judith provided guidelines for possible ways of the future development. We appreciated Judith’s professionalism, support during and even after the reporting period the most. This year we achieved a platinum medal for EcoVadis assessment! (…) Our input was valued, and now we are in the TOP 1% of all companies rated by EcoVadis on sustainability topics. Our experience with Kemi was very positive and we would strongly recommend services provided by Kemi Limited.

Advanced Industries Packaging

More Testimonials