We previously shared a guide to established sustainability frameworks—from formal reporting standards like GRI, to operational systems like ISO 14001, principle-based tools like the 3Rs, Triple Bottom Line, and UN Global Compact, and certifications like B Corp. (See our blogpost: Making Sense of Sustainability Frameworks.) These tools form the backbone of many ESG programs, offering structure, guidance, and broad market recognition.
But sustainability reporting is evolving quickly—especially around climate, nature, and regulatory expectations. A new class of frameworks is emerging to complement those foundational tools. These newer, fast-standardizing frameworks help companies take on validated decarbonization targets, disclose climate-related risks, align with investor-grade reporting, and expand into biodiversity and circularity metrics.
This post shares insights on five of the most widely adopted emerging frameworks—and how they connect back to packaging and data systems that support credible reporting.
Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) helps companies set greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets that align with what climate science says is necessary to limit global warming—typically 1.5°C. These targets are reviewed and validated by a third party, offering credible signals to investors, customers, and regulators. To participate, companies create detailed plans to cut emissions across Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (energy), and Scope 3 (value chain). The goal is to turn ambition into clear, measurable progress grounded in real-world data:
- Best for: Organizations looking to publicly commit to science-based decarbonization with third-party validation.
- What does it mean for packaging? Packaging contributes to Scope 3 through embodied carbon. Strategies such as lightweighting, increasing post-consumer recycled (PCR) content, shifting to mono-material formats, and improving end-of-life outcomes all reduce that footprint.
- Learn more: Explore SBTi’s net-zero guidance and sector criteria.
SBTi has become a key reference point for climate credibility—especially where Scope 3 emissions are significant. As packaging-related changes are quantified and verified, they can serve as both emissions levers and visible signals of action for stakeholders.
Regulatory Reporting Baselines (CSRD / ESRS, plus related rules)
The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) introduce mandatory ESG disclosure requirements for companies operating in or selling into the EU. These frameworks require comprehensive reporting across environmental and social topics and are influencing regulatory trends globally:
- Best for: Organizations that must demonstrate compliance or that want to future-proof voluntary disclosures against emerging mandates. These standards align closely with GRI and ISSB and often draw on TCFD-style climate content.
- What does it mean for packaging? Reporting can include packaging material choices, recycled content, circularity measures, and value-chain impacts in line with ESRS topics.
- Learn more: See an overview of CSRD vs. ESRS scope and requirements: https://www.anthesisgroup.com/insights/csrd-vs-esrs/
As regulatory pressure grows, CSRD and ESRS show how packaging fits into formal compliance and audit-ready disclosure. For companies with EU exposure, packaging data may need to satisfy legal as well as stakeholder expectations.
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
A framework for disclosing climate-related risks and opportunities across governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics/targets—increasingly referenced in regulation. TCFD is widely adopted by boards and investors seeking decision-useful climate risk information. It encourages companies to evaluate both transition risks (like carbon pricing or policy changes) and physical risks (such as extreme weather), and to connect those risks to financial outcomes:
- Best for: Investor and board audiences seeking transparent, decision-useful climate risk reporting, often paired with SBTi commitments.
- What does it mean for packaging?
- Packaging decisions can be linked to transition risks and performance metrics, such as carbon price sensitivity or Scope 3 reduction pathways.
- Governance structures can also document how packaging fits into broader decarbonization roadmaps.
- Learn more: Access the official TCFD recommendations, examples, and guidance: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/
TCFD provides a structure for bringing climate risk into core business conversations—connecting sustainability to financial resilience. For companies already tracking packaging metrics, it offers a natural place to surface that data in a climate governance context.
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board / International Sustainability Standards Board (SASB / ISSB)
SASB and ISSB offer industry-specific, investor-grade ESG disclosure standards that focus on financial materiality and comparability. These standards help companies connect sustainability performance to business outcomes like revenue, cost, and risk. As demand grows for globally consistent reporting, ISSB is becoming a central reference for investor expectations.
- Best for: Public or large organizations that need to integrate ESG disclosures into annual reports, regulatory filings, and analyst communications.
- What does it mean for packaging? Metrics can include material intensity per unit, waste and recycling rates, energy use per unit produced, and packaging circularity KPIs linked to margin and risk.
- Learn more: See how SASB connects with other frameworks through ISSB: https://sasb.ifrs.org/about/sasb-and-other-esg-frameworks/
SASB/ISSB helps make ESG data legible to finance teams and investors—bridging operational performance with business value. Packaging often plays into this equation as both a cost center and a reputational factor, depending on how it’s managed and disclosed.
Nature & Circular Economy Frameworks (TNFD, Circularity programs)
The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) helps companies understand and disclose their dependencies and impacts on nature. Meanwhile, circular economy frameworks—such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s—focus on designing systems for reuse, recycling, and waste elimination. Together, they shift attention beyond carbon to the broader ecological impacts of business:
- Best for: Organizations moving beyond carbon to account for biodiversity risks and pursue closed-loop systems. While related to the “reduce, reuse, recycle” hierarchy, circularity frameworks focus on redesigning entire systems, not just end-of-life solutions.
- What does it mean for packaging? Applications include refill and reuse systems, mono-material designs with clear labeling, recycled or biobased resin strategies, and supplier take-back programs.
- Learn more: Explore UNEP FI resources on circular economy pathways: https://www.unepfi.org/pollution-and-circular-economy/circular-economy/
As reporting expands to include ecosystem impacts, packaging becomes part of a broader circularity and nature story. These frameworks offer a way to connect design decisions to resource use, biodiversity, and long-term system change.
Where to Start — and How Packaging Fits
Use the checklist below to decide which next-layer frameworks to add to your base program and when. Many companies begin with SASB/ISSB and TCFD or CSRD/ESRS, then add SBTi for validated targets, and TNFD/circularity as scope expands. Mapping packaging metrics like PCR %, recyclability, and weight per unit across all frameworks helps maintain consistency, reduce rework, and support multiple stakeholder needs.
| Framework | Purpose (one-liner) | Primary focus | Broad market reach | Policy linkage | 3rd-party check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBTi | Validate science-based GHG targets | Decarbonization targets (Scopes 1–3) | No | ||
| TCFD | Disclose climate risks & opportunities | Governance, strategy, risk, metrics | No | ||
| SASB / ISSB | Investor-grade, industry-specific ESG | Financial materiality & comparability | |||
| TNFD / Circularity programs | Map nature dependencies; design for circularity | Biodiversity risk, closed-loop systems | No | No | |
| CSRD / ESRS | Mandatory EU sustainability reporting | Comprehensive disclosures incl. climate/nature |
Choosing the Right Sustainable Packaging Partner
As SBTi, TCFD, SASB/ISSB, TNFD, and CSRD/ESRS take hold, packaging becomes a set of levers for credible progress—helping to reduce Scope 3 emissions, improve circularity, address nature impacts, and meet assurance needs.
The most effective packaging partners understand that no two programs are the same. Evergreen’s portfolio includes post-consumer and biobased resins, recyclable mono-material formats, refillable and reusable designs, and lightweight packaging—so packaging strategies can adapt to the framework you’re working with. Standardized SKU-level data (PCR %, resin type, weight per unit, recyclability by region, supplier attestations) is structured for reuse across frameworks, reducing rework and supporting consistent reporting.
Whether you’re adding climate targets, preparing for regulatory filings, or building a circularity roadmap, the foundation doesn’t have to shift. Evergreen supports packaging decisions that move in step with your sustainability strategy. Learn more about Evergreen’s sustainability approach here.
