Reducing a packaging carbon footprint starts with identifying where emissions arise and which changes can make the greatest difference.
Lighter packaging, recycled materials and reusable containers can all help, but their benefits depend on how packaging is manufactured, transported, used and managed at the end of its life.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
For packaging manufacturers, brand owners and procurement teams, the challenge is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without compromising product protection, safety or performance.
This requires a life-cycle approach that combines reliable data, careful material selection and practical testing.
Measure emissions across the packaging life cycle
A packaging carbon footprint measures the greenhouse gas emissions associated with packaging within defined assessment boundaries. Results are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e), a unit that accounts for the warming effects of different greenhouse gases.
A life-cycle assessment (LCA) can examine a wider range of environmental impacts, while carbon footprinting focuses on climate change. A reduction in carbon emissions does not necessarily mean that packaging performs better in other areas, such as water use or resource consumption.
Before collecting data, define the purpose and scope of the assessment. Measuring emissions from material production and manufacturing alone will not capture the full impact of distribution, use and end-of-life treatment.
When comparing packaging designs, use the same functional requirements. For example, compare the emissions associated with packaging that protects and delivers the same quantity of product in good condition.
Relevant data include:
- The material and weight of every component, including labels, closures and coatings.
- The origin of materials, their recycled content and the processes used to produce them.
- Energy consumption, fuel use and material waste during manufacturing.
- Transport distances, modes and loading efficiency.
- The expected collection, reuse, recycling and disposal routes in the destination market.
Use reliable supplier data wherever possible. Industry averages can help fill gaps, but document their sources, age and limitations.
The GHG Protocol Product Standard provides a framework for measuring product-related emissions across the life cycle. ISO 14067:2018 sets out principles, requirements and guidance for quantifying and reporting product carbon footprints.
Results from different studies are not automatically comparable, however. Assessment boundaries, data quality and calculation assumptions must be consistent enough to support a meaningful comparison.
Reduce material without increasing product losses
Using less packaging can reduce demand for raw materials, lower manufacturing requirements and cut transport weight. Start by identifying oversized packs, unnecessary layers and components that contribute little to product protection or functionality.
Lightweighting reduces packaging weight while retaining the strength and performance required for its intended use. Examples include thinner container walls, lighter closures and corrugated board designs that use less fibre. Right-sizing can also reduce empty space and the need for void fill.
Every change should be tested under realistic distribution conditions. Stacking, vibration, temperature and moisture can affect packaging performance, and a design that works in the laboratory may behave differently during transport and delivery.
Product protection must remain central to the decision. A weaker pack that increases breakage, spoilage or customer returns can outweigh the emissions savings from using less material. Damage reports, shelf-life trials and returns data can help establish the appropriate level of protection.
The objective is to eliminate unnecessary material, not to reduce packaging at the expense of the product it protects.
Compare materials using equivalent performance
No packaging material is always the lowest-carbon option. Paper, plastic, glass and metal have different production requirements, weights, barrier properties and end-of-life options.
A glass container may increase transport weight, while a paper-based alternative may need coatings to resist moisture. A flexible plastic pack may use relatively little material but have limited recycling options in its intended market. These trade-offs need to be assessed rather than judged by material type alone.
Compare the packaging required to deliver the same quantity of product safely.
Check whether supplier carbon-footprint data and environmental product declarations use compatible methods, geographical assumptions, energy data and end-of-life scenarios. Figures expressed per kilogram of material can be misleading if different amounts of material are needed to perform the same function.
Involve procurement teams early in the design process. Suppliers may be able to offer lighter material grades, lower-emission production routes or more reliable environmental data before specifications are finalised.
The best choice is the material and design that meets the required performance standards while delivering the lowest credible life-cycle emissions.
Increase recycled content and design for recovery
Recycled content can reduce demand for virgin raw materials and may lower production emissions. The benefit depends on the material, recycling process, energy supply and quality of the recovered feedstock.
Packaging manufacturers and brand owners should ask suppliers to substantiate recycled-content figures and provide relevant carbon data. Proposed materials must also meet the performance and safety requirements of their intended applications, particularly where food-contact packaging is involved.
Recycled content and recyclability are separate considerations. A pack containing recycled material may still be difficult to recycle after use. Equally, packaging designed for recycling is not necessarily made with recycled material.
Assess the complete pack against the collection and recycling infrastructure available in its main markets. Practical measures include simplifying material combinations, avoiding components that are difficult to separate, and selecting compatible labels, adhesives, inks and closures. Disposal instructions should reflect the services available to users.
Consult recyclers during product development. A change to a label, adhesive or coating can affect recovery even when the main packaging material remains unchanged.
Carbon assessments should also reflect realistic end-of-life outcomes. A package’s technical recyclability does not guarantee that it will be collected, sorted and recycled in practice.
Improve manufacturing and distribution efficiency
Manufacturing emissions can arise from electricity consumption, fuel use, process heat and material waste. Measuring energy use by production process or line helps identify where improvements are likely to have the greatest impact.
Depending on the operation, opportunities may include more efficient motors, better compressed-air maintenance, heat recovery and reductions in start-up waste and rejected products. Improving production planning and equipment maintenance can also reduce unnecessary energy use.
Track energy consumption against output, such as kilowatt-hours per tonne of packaging produced. Review this alongside total energy use and changes in product mix to distinguish genuine efficiency gains from reductions caused by lower production volumes.
Consider lower-carbon energy options using reliable information about the energy supply and the emissions accounting method applied. Reducing material waste is equally important: fewer rejected products mean less wasted feedstock and energy.
Distribution offers further opportunities. Review pallet patterns, carton dimensions and vehicle utilisation to identify ways to transport more products in each load. Smaller packs can help where freight is constrained by volume, while lighter packs can help where loads are constrained by weight.
These changes deliver benefits only when they translate into actual transport savings. Local sourcing may shorten delivery routes, but distance alone does not determine carbon performance. Compare transport modes and supplier production emissions alongside delivery requirements.
Evaluate reuse as a complete system
Reusable crates, pallets, drums and refillable containers can reduce demand for single-use packaging. Their environmental performance depends on how effectively the return system operates and how many times each item is successfully reused.
Include container manufacture, return transport, washing, repair, losses and final disposal in the assessment. Use realistic estimates of reuse cycles, supported by data on return rates, damage and breakage.
A durable container that is rarely returned may fail to deliver the expected savings. An efficient return network, by contrast, can make repeated use more practical. Before introducing or expanding a system, assess journey distances, cleaning energy, storage requirements and container utilisation.
Compare the complete reusable system with the existing alternative, using the same functional requirements and consistent assessment boundaries. Reuse should be treated as a supply chain decision, not simply a material choice.
Track reductions and substantiate claims
A packaging carbon reduction programme needs a clear baseline, measurable targets and regular reviews.
Begin with the packaging formats that contribute most to emissions, then identify the materials, production processes and supply chain activities offering the greatest potential for improvement.
Monitor both absolute emissions and emissions per unit of product delivered. Emissions per pack may fall even while total emissions rise if sales volumes increase.
Supporting indicators can include packaging weight, recycled content, manufacturing waste, product damage rates and the number of reuse cycles achieved. Together, these measures help explain what is driving changes in the overall footprint.
Reassess results when suppliers, materials, energy sources or distribution routes change. Document uncertainties and test whether different assumptions about recycling, transport or reuse would alter the preferred design.
Businesses should also check the packaging, product safety and environmental-claims requirements that apply in each sales market. The European Commission’s packaging waste guidance provides information on EU requirements. Companies should establish which provisions and implementation dates apply to their products and operations.
Public carbon-reduction claims must be supported by appropriate evidence. Explain what has been compared, which stages of the life cycle are included and whether the results are estimates or independently verified.
Avoid presenting a reduction in carbon emissions as proof that a package is environmentally superior in every respect.
Make carbon reduction part of packaging design
Reducing a packaging carbon footprint is an ongoing process of measurement, design, testing and review. The most effective measures will vary according to the packaging format, product requirements, manufacturing processes and markets served.
Start by measuring the largest sources of emissions, assess practical alternatives and verify the results before extending changes across the product portfolio.
By combining efficient material use, informed sourcing, better manufacturing and realistic recovery strategies, packaging teams can reduce emissions while maintaining the protection their products need.
