From Voluntary to Mandatory: What Sonoco's VP Missed About the Compliance Tipping Point

Scene: I'm on a Zoom call with our EU compliance lead, reviewing California's SB 54 requirements. She sighs, "We had this exact conversation in Brussels five years ago. You're about to learn what we learned the hard way." That's when Scott Byrne's interview landed in my inbox. The Sonoco VP talks about sustainability's shift from voluntary to mandatory—a transition I've lived through across three packaging policy cycles. Here's what he got right, and what still keeps compliance teams up at night.

The Tipping Point: When "Should" Becomes "Must"

Byrne nailed the core shift: sustainability is moving "from its first generation where companies made voluntary claims to the next generation where compliance will be mandatory." Having tracked EPR laws through California, Colorado, and now Washington, I've seen this transition unfold in real time.

The trigger? Legislation like extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging. Byrne's right: the questions have changed from "Does this help our voluntary goals?" to "Does this fit with California's SB 54? What does this mean for SB 343?"

Where his analysis stops short is the operational whiplash. I managed a 200-SKU portfolio when the EU's Single-Use Plastics Directive hit. Voluntary goals give you flexibility; mandates give you deadlines. Miss one, and the fines stack up faster than you can say "regulatory compliance."

Sonoco's Numbers: The Good, The Gap, and The Gray Area

Let's break down the data Byrne shared—through the lens of someone who's had to report these exact metrics to regulators:

• Scope 1 & 2 emissions: 25% reduction target by 2030 (2020 baseline), with 11% achieved as of 2024. At this pace, they'll hit 22–23% by 2030—close, but potentially short of the legal requirements emerging in states like New York.
• Scope 3 emissions: 13.5% reduction target by 2030 (2019 baseline), with 32% already achieved as of 2024. This is the standout number. But here's the catch: scope 3 covers supplier emissions, and with EPR laws shifting responsibility upstream, this metric will face unprecedented scrutiny.
• SBTi recertification: Moving from "well below 2°C" to "1.5°C" standard. Smart move. In my experience, regulators increasingly treat SBTi-aligned targets as compliance benchmarks, not just voluntary commitments.

The Europe Parallel: Byrne's Warning We Should Heed

Byrne's observation about Europe resonated deeply: "If you like what's happening in Europe, let's do that here today. Let's skip the next decade of unknowns... If you don't like the way things are going in Europe, let's see if we can make that change here in North America before a state mandates it."

Having worked with teams in Frankfurt and California simultaneously, I'll add this: Europe's decade of "unknowns" wasn't wasted time. It was painful, expensive trial-and-error that created today's compliance playbook. Byrne's right to look to Europe, but the lesson isn't just "copy what worked"—it's "avoid what broke."

Three specific pitfalls I've seen companies stumble into:

1. The data gap: Voluntary reporting allowed estimates; mandatory reporting demands audited numbers. Sonoco's 2024 emissions data will need to withstand regulatory scrutiny they've never faced before.
2. The supplier squeeze: When EPR fees hit, procurement teams suddenly care about packaging composition. That 32% scope 3 reduction? It'll be tested when suppliers pass along their compliance costs.
3. The regional divergence: Byrne mentions Europe vs. Americas strategies. In practice, we're looking at 50+ state-level variations. California's SB 54 differs from Colorado's, which differs from Washington's. One global strategy won't cut it.

The Virtual Power Play: A Case Study in Timing

Sonoco's virtual power purchasing agreement went live January 1, 2026. This is the kind of move that looks good on paper but reveals timing challenges in execution. From my experience rolling out similar agreements:

• Procurement lead time: These deals take 18–24 months to negotiate. Sonoco likely started in mid-2024—right as EPR laws began passing.
• Regulatory alignment: The agreement needs to match emerging state renewable portfolio standards. Get it wrong, and you're buying credits that don't count toward compliance.
• Financial volatility: Power purchase agreements lock in prices for 10–15 years. With energy markets shifting under decarbonization policies, that's either a brilliant hedge or a costly mistake.

The Bottom Line: What Byrne's Interview Means for the Rest of Us

Scott Byrne's perspective as Sonoco's sustainability VP is valuable—but it's a view from the corporate suite. From the trenches where compliance meets operations, here's my takeaway:

1. The voluntary era is over. If your sustainability plan still uses words like "aspire," "aim," or "target," replace them with "will," "must," and "by [date]."

2. Data is your new currency. Byrne's numbers are a start. Now they need to be granular, auditable, and mapped to specific state requirements.

3. Europe isn't a template—it's a warning. Learn from their mistakes, not just their successes. The companies that thrived under EU regulations were the ones who started preparing five years before the laws passed.

Sonoco's transition mirrors the industry's broader shift. The question isn't whether we'll move from voluntary to mandatory—that ship has sailed. The question is how many companies will make the journey without hitting regulatory icebergs along the way.

— Analysis from a packaging compliance veteran with 12 years of experience navigating sustainability regulations across North America and Europe, including implementation of three major EPR programs for a multinational packaging manufacturer.