There are three compounding factors that take an already strong environmental case and move it into a different category entirely. This piece works through each of them.
Factor one: HDPE raises the ceiling
The LCA studies that established the plastic advantage used both HDPE and LDPE depending on the market. The UK Environment Agency study identified the HDPE bag, the most common type in UK, as having the lowest environmental impacts; the Danish EPA study found LDPE carrier bags, the most common type in Denmark, to be the lowest impact option. Both types of polyethylene beat paper comprehensively. Our air cushion films are HDPE — in the same material family and recycling category as both types, and with an extra structural advantage worth noting.
HDPE has a more tightly packed, linear molecular structure than LDPE, giving it greater tensile strength per unit of thickness. The same protective performance can be achieved with significantly less material. Less material per functional unit means less energy in production, less weight in transport, and less waste at end of life. The LCA advantage of the grocery bag studies (for more see our Blog The Plastic Bag Paradox) is driven primarily by low mass per functional unit. HDPE air cushion film has a better mass efficiency than the averaged case of HDPE & LDPE in the studies.
Therefore the comparison to paper void fill is therefore even more lopsided than the grocery bag studies suggest. The results were based on a mix of LDPE & HDPE and plastic still won comprehensively. A good base that HDPE packaging films raises further versus paper void fill.
Factor two: the 99% air multiplier
This is where the argument departs entirely from conventional material comparisons.
The LCA studies compare packaging materials on a like-for-like basis — plastic bag versus paper bag, same volume, same function, material assessed against material. That is the right methodology for comparing grocery bags. But for protective void fill packaging, the two materials being compared are not equivalent volumes of solid material.
Paper void fill is solid. An inflated aircushion is 99% air and 1% film, depending on size. The point being the vast majority of the protective material is Air – and Air is the best cushioning. Ask Nike.
When you inflate an air cushion, you are not replacing paper with plastic film. You are replacing paper — a material that already performs significantly worse than plastic on every LCA measure — with almost nothing. The film is the vessel that holds the air in place. The protective function is performed by the air itself.
Consider what this means for the weight comparison. The grocery bag studies found that plastic bags weigh around 6grams against paper's 60 grams — a 10× weight advantage that drives the LCA result. An air cushion inflated to provide equivalent void fill protection to a comparable volume of paper weighs a fraction even of the plastic bag. The material being assessed is as low as 1% of the total volume of the packaging. The rest is weightless. Also great if your freight is charged by weight.
The denkstatt study found that replacing plastic packaging with paper alternatives increases packaging weight by 3.6times, energy use by 2.2 times, and CO₂ emissions by 2.7 times — on a material-for-material comparison. These figures apply when you compare equivalent volumes of solid material. When one of those materials is 99% or majority air, the comparison essentially collapses. There is no conventional LCA framework that captures how lopsided the advantage becomes, because LCA was not designed to compare a solid material against something that is almost entirely nothing.
This is not a rhetorical point. It is a material scientific reality. The environmental case for air cushion packaging versus paper void fill is not just stronger than the plastic-versus-paper case— it is in a fundamentally different category.
Factor three: the disposal trajectory
The 24+ LCA studies that established the plastic advantage made a deliberate worst-case assumption at the end-of-life stage: the plastic bag goes to general waste. No recycling. The plastic wins anyway.
For our HDPE air cushion film, that worst-case assumption describes one tier of a three-tier reality — and it is the lowest tier.
Tier one: general waste. When HDPE film goes to general waste, it is typically incinerated through energy from waste (EfW) systems. HDPE has one of the highest calorific values of any common household material and generates significant electricity and heat when incinerated through modern EfW infrastructure. Rather than being an environmental liability at end of life, it becomes an energy asset, displacing fossil fuel generation in the grid. Paper, by contrast, generates significantly less energy when incinerated. And much more paper gets incinerated or landfilled than people realise. The worst-case scenario for our film is still a meaningful environmental positive.
The single caveat to this tier is littering - a human behaviour problem, not a material problem. Paper littered also causes ecological harm, but attracts less attention. The solution is responsible disposal, not material substitution. And the tools for achieving this are education, littering penalties, deposit return schemes, and better waste infrastructure. We will return to this in more detail later in the series.
Tier two: soft plastic collection. All major UK supermarkets operate in-store soft plastic collections. Local authority curbside soft plastic collections are also expanding across the UK, with the Simpler Recycling legislation mandating coverage for all English households and businesses by March 2027. All soft plastics are accepted in these collections, including HDPE air cushion film.
Material that enters any soft plastic collection streams is not littered. Even where processing capacity means some collected material is currently incinerated rather than recycled — a transitional issue the industry is actively addressing — the end-of-life outcome is EfW energy recovery, not environmental contamination. The litter caveat is then addressed entirely.
Tier three: genuine recycling. HDPE polyethylene is the ideal material for soft plastic recycling. As collection infrastructure scales, consumer habits improve, and processing capacity catches up with collection volumes, a growing proportion of used air cushion film will be recycled. And then returning to the material stream as recycled content in new products, such as our films. That is a circular economy in action, doing the most with the least impact.
Our Return 2 Recycle scheme was born to do our modest bit to encourage this process. It delivers this outcome for every customer who participates: prepaid mailers, a dedicated collection process, and confirmed recycling rather than general waste. It is tier three available today, without waiting for the broader infrastructure to catch up.
The LCA studies assumed tier one. FGP's films already exceed that assumption in every dimension — 50% recycled content at the production stage, and multiple end-of-life pathways that are significantly better than the worst-case the studies credited in the studies.
What this means when you put it together
The environmental case for FGP's HDPE air cushion film against paper void fill is not a single argument. It is a compounding series of advantages, each of which strengthens the others.
The baseline LCA studies show plastic film already wins comprehensively against paper on a material-for-material comparison. HDPE raises the ceiling above that baseline through superior material efficiency. The 99% air composition of an inflated air cushion means the material-for-material comparison barely applies — the protective function is performed almost entirely by air, not film. And the end-of-life trajectory is moving in one positive direction only: from EfW energy recovery at the floor, through soft plastic collection, toward genuine recycling as the system matures.
At every stage of its life, FGP's air cushion packaging makes a stronger environmental case than the studies would predict —and those studies already strongly favour plastic over paper.
That is what the science actually shows, when you follow it all the way through.
References: Environmental briefing drawing on24+ independent peer-reviewed LCA studies including Franklin Associates (US),Danish Environmental Protection Agency, UK Environment Agency, ClemsonUniversity, denkstatt GmbH (Europe). HDPE material properties: standard polymerscience, confirmed in environmental briefing. UK recycling infrastructure:Simpler Recycling legislation (DEFRA), supermarket soft plastic take-backschemes. Synthesised with reference to the work of Dr. Chris DeArmitt PhD,FRSC, FIMMM, independent materials scientist, no industry funding.