When you examine the topic of sustainability in packaging over the past decade, you’ll see that we've reduced the complexity of the issue down to a simplistic moral code: paper is good, and plastic is bad. This is a well-known and emotionally compelling argument, but unfortunately completely inaccurate.

The real environmental impact of packaging isn't coming from the material itself, but how much of it we're using, its efficiency in the supply chain, how well it protects the contents, and what happens to it after disposal.

When you take a closer look, paper often turns out to be a poor substitute for plastic, not necessarily a better one.

paper label and ribbon in a trash can — Alex He @unsplash

The Core Problem: Treating Material Choice as the Solution

In terms of sustainability, companies make the mistake of thinking they can just swap out a material, slap a recycling symbol on it, and call it a day. But packaging is more than just the physical materials; it's a system that includes production, logistics, the time it sits on the shelf, how consumers use it, and the waste management infrastructure that determines what happens to it after it has outlived its immediate use.

Well-known environmental damage is caused by performance, not symbolism. If a package looks sustainable but falls apart quickly, it causes more harm than a simple, efficient package that quietly does its job. The statistics show us that lots of well-intentioned changes to packaging don't amount to much in practice.

Why Paper Feels Right (Even When It Isn’t)

Paper’s appeal has very little to do with data. It’s familiar. It looks natural. It decomposes visibly. Consumers understand it without explanation. Regulators prefer it because it’s politically safe.

That perception advantage has pushed paper into roles it was never well-suited for. Moisture-sensitive products. Long shelf-life goods. Liquids. Greasy or oxygen-sensitive contents.

To function in these applications, paper needs help. And that help comes at a cost.

Paper packaging often relies on additional layers, coatings, or laminations to provide basic barrier properties. Once those layers are added, the packaging frequently becomes non-recyclable in standard paper streams.

At the same time, paper usually requires more material to achieve the same strength as plastic. Thicker walls. Heavier structures. Larger volumes.

None of that reduces environmental impact.

What Paper Packaging Often Gets Wrong

When paper replaces plastic without redesigning the entire system, the same issues appear again and again.

Increased packaging weight, leading to higher transport emissions;
Reduced product protection, especially against moisture and oxygen;
Lower recyclability due to coatings or mixed materials;
Shorter shelf life, resulting in higher product waste.

Each of these problems offsets the perceived environmental benefit of switching to paper. In some cases, the net impact is worse than before.

This doesn’t mean paper is always the wrong choice. It means paper is only sustainable when it performs efficiently within its intended use.

The Overlooked Variable: Product Waste

One of the most uncomfortable truths in packaging sustainability is that wasted product almost always causes more environmental damage than the packaging itself.

piled up paper boxes — CHUTTERSNAP @unsplash

Food waste, cosmetic waste, and medical waste — these have high upstream footprints. Energy, water, raw materials, and transport are all embedded in the product long before it reaches the package.

If packaging fails to protect the product, the sustainability conversation ends there.

A slightly heavier package that prevents spoilage can reduce overall impact. A lighter package that allows leakage, contamination, or early disposal does the opposite.

This is why packaging performance matters more than packaging appearance.

Why Plastic Still Exists

Plastic wasn’t adopted because it was cheap or convenient alone. It was adopted because it solved problems efficiently.

Plastic provides strong barriers at very low thickness. It protects products from moisture, oxygen, and contamination while remaining lightweight. That combination reduces transport emissions and extends shelf life.

From a systems perspective, plastic is highly efficient.

The environmental damage associated with plastic comes from poor design decisions and weak end-of-life systems, not from the material’s inherent properties.

Replacing plastic without addressing those failures simply moves the problem elsewhere.

The Real Shift: Designing for Simplicity

The most meaningful improvements in packaging sustainability over the past few years haven’t come from material bans. They’ve come from design simplification.

Reducing material complexity makes recycling easier. Lighter structures reduce emissions immediately. Clear disposal pathways increase actual recovery rates.

This is where mono-material packaging becomes important.

Mono-material designs use a single polymer instead of layered composites. They maintain performance while improving compatibility with existing recycling systems. They don’t rely on ideal consumer behaviour or future infrastructure.

This approach directly addresses the gap between theoretical recyclability and real-world outcomes, which is where many sustainable packaging claims fall apart.

What Actually Reduces Environmental Impact

Across industries, regions, and product categories, the same principles consistently deliver measurable improvements.

Use less material to achieve the same function;
Reduce packaging weight wherever possible;
Protect the product effectively to prevent waste;
Design for recycling systems that already exist;
Avoid unnecessary material combinations.

None of these outcomes is guaranteed by choosing paper. All of them depend on how the packaging is designed.

Asking Better Questions Changes the Outcome

The common question — “Should we use paper or plastic?” — is the wrong starting point.

A better set of questions produces better results:

Does this packaging protect the product with minimal material?
Can it be realistically recycled where it will be sold?
Does it reduce transport emissions across the supply chain?
Will it extend shelf life and prevent waste?

When these questions guide decisions, material choice becomes a consequence, not the goal.

Why Perception Still Dominates Decision-Making

Looking at the world of sustainability, numbers and facts don't always win over consumer perception. People tend to go by what they can see, and retailers take note of that. Regulators, too, prefer clear-cut explanations.

cardboard sign eco not ego — Markus Spiske @unsplash

A well-known problem is that sustainability measures born from a desire to be seen as responsible, rather than genuine concern for the planet, rarely hold up to scrutiny.

Reporting requirements, made tighter, and lifecycle assessments on the rise, start to expose the chasm between the promises and the reality, highlighting the embarrassing realities of heavier packaging, skyrocketing emissions, and throwaway culture that don't square well with the marketing narratives.

The companies that get it right are the ones that are taking sustainability seriously, and as a technical problem, not a branding ploy.

Moving Past Materials: What Sustainability Really Depends On

Paper is not a shortcut to sustainability. Plastic is not automatically the enemy. Both materials can perform well or poorly depending on how they are used.

What reduces environmental impact is efficiency. Less material. Better protection. Simpler structures. Compatibility with real recycling systems.

When packaging decisions are based on how systems actually function rather than how materials are perceived, sustainability stops being vague and starts being measurable.

And that’s when progress becomes real.

About the Author:

Dave Klaassen is the CEO of DaklaPack Group, a global provider of innovative and sustainable packaging solutions. With decades of industry experience, Dave leads the company’s strategic growth and product development, helping businesses optimize packaging processes and improve operational efficiency. He is passionate about innovation and building long-term partnerships that drive measurable results.