• Reduction of non-renewable materials: Substituting plastic with paper will typically result in a lower usage of non-renewable resources. While papermaking fibers are renewable, many of the coatings and fillers are not.  As such, the source and the end of life of the non-fibrous materials should be kept in mind. 

• Increased recyclability: In many cases, replacing plastic films with paper-based solutions will lead to higher levels of recycling simply because the recycling infrastructure for collecting films is limited in the U.S. Transparent paper that is more compatible with the recycling process can be a substitute for plastic windows in packaging or, alternatively, printing techniques can be deployed on paper to illustrate product contents. Similarly, paper packaging can present a viable solution for plastic films such as wraps and bags or for protective packaging where molded fiber may substitute for expanded plastic foam. Cardboard packaging solutions that are more readily recyclable in the current U.S. system can substitute for less recyclable shrink film and plastic rings used for multi-pack beverages (1). Innovations in paper coating, especially in food applications, are increasing (2).  

• Increased recycled content: Heavier paper and cardboard used in rigid non-food packaging can be made with high levels of recycled content.  The EPA’s “Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for Paper and Paper Products” provides guidance on recycled content for various applications (22). One of the primary markets for 100% recycled cardboard is residential mixed paper. 

• Reduced need for refrigeration: Some carton formats can prevent food spoilage while reducing the need for refrigeration, which in turn could be associated with reductions in life-cycle emissions in some cases and applications. 

• Consumer preference: Consumers may appreciate paper and cardboard packaging for reasons of recyclability and practicability, as a study in the UK found (5).  

As mentioned above, a switch to paper-based packaging needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into account these factors.  A switch to paper should consider GHGs, refrigeration needs, sourcing of the fiber, packaging weight, costs, recyclability of the application, and overall recycling rates.   

• Recycled Content and Non-Recycled Feedstocks: Recycled-content papers are highly available in the U.S., some with very high levels of recycled content. Specifying the recycled content and exploring the highest possible levels reduces impacts of virgin production, supports the recycling collection system, and keeps reusable fiber out of landfills. However, paper can be repulped and reused up to seven times, so recycled fiber and new sustainable fiber need to be used in the best ways as interdependent feedstocks (4, 14). Sustainable forest management standards address a breadth of social and environmental aspects associated with timber harvesting. Companies should seek out certified sources to ensure fiber is being sourced responsibly. There are three types of paper certifications: forest management certifications, wood procurement certifications, and chain of custody (CoC) certifications (14). Programs such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC), or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program (SFI) (2, 4) have been adopted globally and certified products are widely available. Fiber from certified and recycled feedstock is limited (13% of forests are certified in the U.S.). However, non-certified fiber can be responsibly sourced. In the U.S. these non-certified fibers are still frequently managed in accordance with (federal, state, local) standards but miss the additional level of assurance via independent auditing. Companies purchasing such fiber, therefore, need to undertake additional due diligence (14).

• Ensuring compatibility with the recovery system: Ensure that paper recycling infrastructure is in place and at scale and that your future packaging design is compatible with the recycling processes. Consider the availability of collection and sorting schemes as well as the probable fate of the packaging (1, 4). Compatibility with recycling processing can, for instance, be confirmed by Western Michigan University testing (15).

• Design paper packaging for recyclability: There are many choices that can affect the recyclability of paper. Generally speaking, water-soluble inks, dyes, adhesives, and coatings cause few problems. The use of certain materials such as wet-strength resins and non-paper materials (e.g., plastic windows or foils) can also be problematic (13). 

• Invest in innovation: Innovation in new materials, packaging designs, and barrier coatings/alternatives for plastic linings are rapidly evolving and will likely improve the outcomes of paper packaging in the future. However, coatings and fillers should be compatible with the expected end of life of the product (e.g. compostable or recyclable) and need to be applied and proven at scale (2).

• Clear identification as paper: Ensure that any potential packaging alternative to plastic is either completely made from paper or that the plastic or other non-fiber parts are clearly labeled and distinguishable to support appropriate disposal/recycling. Recycling should be the preferred option, but there may be cases (e.g., with food contact) in which composting of some kinds of paper packaging is a viable and/or a preferred solution. 

• Improving recovery and recycling: Although corrugated cardboard enjoys high recycling rates, other kinds of paper packaging are recycled at lower rates. Due to the predominantly commingled-stream nature of the U.S. recycling system, materials tend to be interdependent. For that reason, an effective recovery system for all materials is an essential ingredient for the success of all packaging materials. Brands and packagers should recognize that they have a role to play in developing a robust U.S. recycling system that in turn delivers the environmental and economic benefits envisioned in sustainable packaging. 

• Support direct investments in recycling: Direct investments in recycling have the potential to accelerate the expansion of paper, cardboard, and carton collection and recycling; increase recycled content in paper; and reduce contamination (2). For example, the percentage of the U.S. population with recycling programs available for cartons is in the 20-60% range, which underperforms certain common plastic alternatives such as PET bottles. Continuing to increase this share is a critical enabler for justifying a shift to beverage cartons, for example (9).  

• Paper recycling infrastructure and sourcing standards: Demand for recycled content helps incentivize and justify investments in paper recycling infrastructure. At the same time, broader commitment to the use of sustainability standards for virgin fiber and to the use of paper recycling design guides helps ensure sustainable fiber sourcing and the use of paper packaging that is most compatible with the recycling system (1, 4, 2).

• Innovation of paper packaging: Participation in research and development and adoption of viable innovations to ensure coatings and barriers are recyclable is critical to long-term success (2).