The recyclable label a quick fix could not actually fix

The situation

The first time a complaint landed about the packaging, Adaeze had handled it herself. A customer had written in, and separately a message had circulated online, questioning whether the plastic tubs her company used for its skincare line were actually recyclable in the way the label suggested. Adaeze, who had built the company from a kitchen-table operation into a small manufacturer with a few employees, treated it as a wording problem. She swapped 'recyclable' for 'recyclable where facilities exist,' updated the print file for the next production run, and considered the matter closed.

It was not closed. The revised wording was better than the original, but it still implied a level of recyclability that did not match how the packaging was actually constructed — a multi-layer tub that most municipal recycling programs, including the one in Sudbury where the company operated, could not process through standard curbside collection. A few months later, the same complaint resurfaced, this time filed formally with a marketing standards body that reviews environmental claims, submitted by Mykola, who ran a competing skincare line and had flagged the labelling to the body directly rather than posting about it online again.

The timing could not have been worse. Adaeze's company, still under a million dollars in annual revenue, was in the final stages of hiring its first outside executive — a vice-president of operations who would be the company's first senior hire from outside the founding circle. The candidate's own due diligence, conducted casually through a mutual contact before the offer was finalized, had turned up the earlier complaint history. The hire was not off, but it was paused pending some reassurance that the company's compliance posture was solid.

Adaeze's brother Chidi, who handled sourcing and had picked the original packaging supplier, felt responsible and pushed to fix the label again quickly, the same way she had the first time. Adaeze had learned enough from the first round to know that another quick wording change, without actually verifying what the packaging could and could not do, would likely just produce a third complaint down the road. What she had already tried had failed once. She was not willing to try the same kind of fix twice.

What the review found

A proper substantiation review starts from a different question than a wording review does. Instead of asking whether the label sounds accurate, it asks whether the company can actually back up the specific claim it is making, with evidence, if challenged. Environmental marketing claims are treated seriously under the federal misleading advertising rules that apply to businesses across Canada, and a general statement like 'recyclable' is read narrowly: it needs to be true for the packaging as sold, in the places it is actually sold, not true in theory somewhere.

The review found two separate problems layered on top of each other. First, the tub's multi-layer construction, which combined a rigid outer shell with a foil-lined inner barrier for shelf stability, was not accepted by most curbside recycling programs, including Sudbury's, regardless of what any label said. The 'where facilities exist' qualifier Adaeze had added after the first complaint was itself misleading, because it implied such facilities existed somewhere reasonably accessible to customers, when in practice almost none did. Second, the original supplier's own marketing material, which Chidi had relied on when sourcing the packaging, had described the tub as 'eco-friendly' without ever specifying what that meant — a vague claim that had quietly worked its way into the company's own product descriptions.

The review also turned up a smaller but relevant issue: the company's website carried an older product photo showing a now-discontinued version of the tub with a different, unqualified 'recyclable' claim still live on a page nobody had updated when the label itself was changed. A complaint reviewer checking the company's overall claims, not just the physical label, would have found the same problem in a second place.

None of this reflected an intent to mislead. It reflected what happens when a claim gets corrected once, informally, by changing a few words, without anyone actually verifying what the underlying product could support. The first fix had treated the complaint as a public relations problem. The second review treated it as a factual question with a factual answer, and the answer was that the packaging, as built, could not carry a recyclability claim at all without a real change to either the packaging or the claim.

What we did

1. Requested the technical specifications for the packaging directly from the manufacturer, rather than relying on the supplier's own marketing language the way the original sourcing decision had, because a substantiation review has to start from what the material can be shown to do, not from what a sales sheet claims. The specification sheet confirmed the foil-lined inner barrier Chidi had never been told about, the detail that ultimately decided the review, since it explained why the tub behaved so differently in practice than its outer shell suggested.
2. Confirmed the multi-layer construction was not accepted by Sudbury's own curbside program, checking directly with the municipality rather than relying on general industry assumptions about what most programs typically process, and cross-checked that finding against several comparable municipal programs across the region to see whether the problem was local or general. It turned out to be general, which settled the factual question the label needed to answer before any wording could be considered accurate anywhere the product was actually sold.
3. Audited every place the claim appeared, not just the physical label that had prompted the complaint, including the company website, product description copy, and old social media posts going back several years, on the theory that a reviewer at the marketing standards body would look at the company's overall conduct, not just the one label someone had flagged. That wider audit is what turned up the outdated product page still carrying the original, unqualified claim nobody had remembered to update.
4. Removed the recyclability claim entirely from the current packaging and all associated materials, since no accurate qualified version of the claim was actually available given how the tub was constructed, rather than attempting a third wording adjustment that would have repeated the same underlying mistake in a new form. Removing the claim outright, rather than softening it again, was the only option that matched what the technical specifications had actually shown.
5. Worked with Adaeze to identify an alternative claim the company could genuinely substantiate, landing on the tub's recycled content percentage, a figure the supplier could document with its own production records, and replaced the recyclability claim with an accurate recycled-content statement across the label and website together. That gave the company something honest and specific to say about the packaging instead of leaving the space blank, which mattered for a skincare brand that had built part of its identity around sustainability.
6. Prepared a written response to the marketing standards body setting out the corrective steps taken, the full removal of the unsupported claim across every channel the audit had found, and the company's new internal process for reviewing environmental claims against supplier documentation before anything goes to print, so the reviewer could see the fix addressed the pattern behind the complaint, not just the single label that triggered it.
7. Documented the entire review and correction in a short written file for the incoming executive, so the new vice-president had a clear, factual account of what had gone wrong, what had been fixed, and why, rather than relying on the secondhand and incomplete version of events that had already reached them through the earlier informal due diligence conversation and nearly stalled the hire altogether.

The outcome

The marketing standards body accepted the corrective response and closed the complaint without further action, on the basis that the company had removed the unsupported claim across all its materials and replaced it with one it could actually document. The correction covered the physical label, the website, and the outdated product page in the same pass, closing off the path by which the same complaint could resurface a third time. Mykola, who had filed the formal complaint, received the same written confirmation the standards body issued to Adaeze's company, and did not pursue the matter further once the correction was made across every channel where the old claim had appeared.

The executive hire proceeded on the original timeline once the file was shown to be resolved. The written record of the review and correction gave the incoming vice-president something concrete to point to, rather than a verbal assurance that the issue had been handled, which mattered given that the earlier informal fix was part of what had prompted the pause in the first place. Having a documented, factual account of the whole episode, rather than a story that depended on Adaeze's own account of what had happened, was what actually satisfied the executive's due diligence concern, since it showed the company could correct a real problem properly once it understood what the problem actually was.

Adaeze's company has since built a short internal checklist for any new marketing claim about a product's environmental attributes, requiring supplier documentation before a claim goes to print rather than after a complaint arrives, and applying that same checklist retroactively to every existing claim already on the company's packaging and website. Chidi, who had sourced the original packaging, now reviews supplier marketing language with the same skepticism the review applied the second time around, and has since flagged two other supplier claims on unrelated products for the same kind of check before they became a problem instead of after.

What you can learn from this