Should food companies pursue ESG certification before 2027?
Yes, food companies should pursue ESG certification before 2027, particularly those supplying European markets or operating within the supply chains of larger retailers and food manufacturers. The regulatory landscape is tightening fast: the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) became enforceable in August 2026, and mandatory sustainability reporting under CSRD is expanding. Certification now gives food companies a measurable, credible head start before compliance pressure becomes unavoidable. The sections below unpack the most important questions around ESG certification, reporting obligations, and packaging decisions for food businesses navigating this landscape.
What does ESG certification actually require from food companies?
ESG certification is a third-party-verified process that confirms a company meets defined Environmental, Social, and Governance standards. Unlike self-declared sustainability claims, it involves an independent audit against measurable criteria covering climate impact, labor practices, and ethical governance. For food companies, achieving certification means demonstrating real, documented performance, not just intent.
The most relevant certifications for food producers each serve a different purpose. B Corp assesses the entire business and signals a company-wide commitment to social and environmental performance. ISO 14001 establishes a formal environmental management system but does not cover social or governance dimensions. EcoVadis is widely used for B2B supply chain credibility, rating companies across sustainability dimensions and making results visible to procurement teams. FSC Chain of Custody and BRCGS Packaging certifications are more specific to food packaging supply chains, verifying responsible fiber sourcing and food-safe manufacturing, respectively.
One important practical point: certification is not a one-time achievement. ISO 14001 requires annual surveillance audits and a full recertification every three years. B Corp recertifies on a similar cycle. Both typically demand six months or more of sustained internal effort to prepare. Food companies should treat certification as an ongoing operational commitment, not a box to tick.
Why is 2027 a critical deadline for food industry ESG compliance?
The period between now and 2027 is critical because several major EU regulatory frameworks have either just taken effect or are approaching their next enforcement milestone. The PPWR became fully enforceable across all 27 EU member states in August 2026, and mandatory CSRD sustainability reporting for the next wave of companies applies to fiscal year 2027 data. Companies that begin building their ESG infrastructure now will be positioned to comply; those that wait will be retrofitting under pressure.
The PPWR is a regulation, not a directive, meaning it applies directly and uniformly in every EU member state without requiring national legislation. Its core requirements include ensuring all packaging is recyclable or reusable by 2030, meeting packaging waste reduction targets, and complying with PFAS restrictions on food-contact materials that took effect in August 2026. Recyclability grading and mandatory recycled content rules arrive from 2030 onwards, with Extended Producer Responsibility fees modulated by how recyclable a company’s packaging actually is.
On the reporting side, the Omnibus I Directive (in force March 2026) narrowed the mandatory CSRD scope significantly. Mandatory reporting now primarily applies to EU companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in net annual turnover. Wave 2 companies face their first reporting obligation for fiscal year 2027, with reports published in 2028. Smaller food companies are largely outside the mandatory scope for now, but the indirect pressure from customers and investors remains very real, as discussed below.
What’s the difference between ESG certification and ESG reporting?
ESG certification and ESG reporting are distinct but complementary. Certification is a voluntary, third-party-verified credential: a scheme like B Corp, ISO 14001, or EcoVadis validates that a company meets defined standards. ESG reporting under CSRD is a mandatory legal disclosure obligation, requiring companies to publish detailed, audited sustainability data using the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). A company can hold certifications without being subject to CSRD, and vice versa.
The practical difference matters for food companies planning their sustainability strategy. Certification schemes validate specific aspects of performance but do not substitute for the structured data disclosures ESRS requires. CSRD reporting demands quantified, auditable information: Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions per the GHG Protocol, resource inflows and outflows including recycled materials, waste by treatment method, and time-bound targets aligned with the EU waste hierarchy. Standard certifications do not generate this level of granular, auditable data automatically.
That said, certifications are genuinely useful within a CSRD reporting framework. ESG certification audits verify environmental and social performance and can serve as supporting evidence within a CSRD report, particularly where ESRS requires external assurance over sustainability disclosures. A food company holding ISO 14001 and BRCGS certifications enters the CSRD reporting process with documented, audited data that would otherwise need to be built from scratch. The two tracks reinforce each other; they are just not interchangeable.
Which ESG certifications are most relevant for food packaging decisions?
For food companies making packaging decisions with ESG implications, the most defensible combination is FSC Chain of Custody certification paired with ISO 14001. FSC CoC verifies that fiber-based packaging materials trace back to responsibly managed forests, providing objective, auditable sourcing credentials. ISO 14001 demonstrates that the manufacturing environment operates within a formal environmental management system. Together, they address two independent risk areas, raw material origin and production impact, under separate audit frameworks.
BRCGS Packaging certification is specifically designed for companies manufacturing packaging or packaging materials used in food production. It verifies that manufacturing processes meet food safety and quality standards, and the highest grade, AA+, signals consistent, audited excellence across both dimensions. We at Jospak hold BRCGS Packaging certification at AA+ grade alongside FSC CoC certification, meaning our supply chain has been independently verified across fiber sourcing, food safety, and manufacturing quality.
EcoVadis is increasingly relevant for food packaging suppliers operating in B2B supply chains. With procurement teams at major food manufacturers using EcoVadis ratings to screen suppliers, a strong EcoVadis score can directly influence purchasing decisions. EcoVadis rates suppliers across more than 150,000 companies globally, making it one of the most widely recognized tools for supply chain sustainability verification. For packaging suppliers seeking to demonstrate ESG credibility to food industry customers, EcoVadis provides a structured, comparable score that procurement teams can act on.
Should smaller food companies pursue ESG certification before larger ones?
Smaller food companies should pursue ESG certification proactively, even though the Omnibus I changes mean most SMEs are now outside the mandatory CSRD reporting scope. The commercial pressure from customers and investors does not disappear just because the legal obligation does. Procurement leaders at larger food manufacturers and retailers increasingly require sustainability data from their suppliers as part of their own CSRD compliance, and certified suppliers are easier to qualify than uncertified ones.
The risk of inaction is concrete. A growing gap exists between large corporations accelerating their ESG programs and smaller suppliers who have not yet built the infrastructure to respond. For SMEs operating within the supply chains of major food companies, this gap is both a competitive risk and a market opportunity. Survey findings from Sustain 2026 highlighted that the vast majority of procurement leaders say ESG factors matter in purchasing decisions, yet finding genuinely sustainable suppliers remains difficult. Certified SMEs are positioned to fill that gap.
There is also a practical timing argument. The cost of building measurement and certification infrastructure now, before reporting obligations potentially expand again in a future regulatory revision, is substantially lower than retrofitting it under deadline pressure. The Omnibus review clause means smaller companies could fall back within CSRD’s reach in a future revision. Starting the certification process early means food companies build the habits, data systems, and supplier relationships that make ongoing compliance manageable rather than disruptive.
How does packaging material choice affect a food company’s ESG score?
Packaging sits within Scope 3 emissions, specifically the upstream category covering purchased goods and services. Every packaging purchase carries the embedded carbon from raw material extraction, processing, manufacturing, and transport. For food companies, switching from fossil-based plastic packaging to fiber-based alternatives is one of the clearest and most measurable actions available to reduce Scope 3 emissions and improve ESG performance across environmental indicators.
Under ESRS E5, food companies subject to CSRD must disclose resource inflows including recycled or reused materials, resource outflows covering products designed for circularity, and waste by treatment method. Packaging decisions feed directly into these disclosures. Fiber-based packaging made from sustainably certified materials, designed so that cardboard and film separate for recycling, generates measurably different ESRS E5 data than fully plastic alternatives. Life Cycle Assessments are the backbone of credible ESRS E5 reporting: they provide the auditable evidence that turns packaging claims into structured, verifiable disclosures.
The PPWR adds a financial dimension to packaging material choice. From 2030, Extended Producer Responsibility fees will be directly modulated by a packaging’s recyclability grade. Packaging that cannot achieve a qualifying recyclability grade will face higher fees and potential market restrictions. Fiber-based trays that are designed for separation and recovery, recyclable in existing cardboard collection systems, are structurally better positioned under this framework than packaging that relies on complex multi-material structures without clear end-of-life pathways.
The PPWR’s PFAS restrictions, which took effect in August 2026, are also directly relevant to packaging material decisions. PFAS compounds have historically been used as grease and water repellents in paper and board packaging, making food-service packaging one of the most exposed categories. Food companies reviewing their packaging supply chain should confirm that fiber-based suppliers meet the strict concentration thresholds now in force. We at Jospak use fiber materials and processes that meet these requirements, and we actively manage the risk of unintentional PFAS residues in recycled fiber streams.
For food companies building an ESG strategy around sustainable packaging choices, the material decision is not just an environmental preference, it is an increasingly regulated, financially consequential, and commercially visible part of the business. Choosing packaging suppliers with independently verified certifications, documented fiber sourcing, and recyclable-by-design products gives food companies the evidence base they need for both voluntary ESG certification and mandatory CSRD reporting.
