What the LCA evidence shows
Life cycle analysis — the globally accepted scientific methodology for measuring the full environmental impact of a material from raw material extraction through to end of life — has been applied to e-commerce mailer packaging by multiple independent research bodies. The findings are consistent.
A 2021 study by PTIS LLC — Sustainability Life Cycle and Economic Impacts of Flexible Packaging in E-commerce —examined a range of mailer formats across multiple environmental impact categories. Its conclusion was unambiguous:
"The poly flexible mailer, as well as the bubble mailer made from HDPE, came in with the lowest environmental impacts across a range of metrics, including fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, water use, material used, and the amount of material discarded."
A Franklin Associates study commissioned by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the US EPA examined the same question from a different angle — lifecycle inventory of packaging options for mail-order soft goods shipped to residential customers. Its conclusion on the key driver is equally clear:
"The main conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis regarding packaging options for shipping mail-order soft goods to residential customers is that the weight of the packaging is the most critical factor influencing the environmental burdens."
Paper mailers are significantly heavier than plastic equivalents. That weight difference drives material demand, energy consumption in production, and transport emissions at every stage of the supply chain. It is the primary reason plastic mailers outperform paper across every environmental category studied.
The Amazon and Google example
In recent years, two of the world's largest e-commerce companies — Amazon and Google — made high-profile announcements that they would be moving from plastic to paper mailers, citing sustainability as the rationale. Both announcements were well received by customers and widely reported as positive environmental commitments.
The LCA evidence tells a different story. Every study conducted on the question found that the switch from plastic to paper mailers increases greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel use, and waste. The companies were responding to customer perception rather than scientific evidence — and the environmental outcome was worse, not better.
This is unfortunatley quite common.
An understandable but also debunked counterpoint
It is worth acknowledging one honest counterargument: paper currently has more established recycling infrastructure than soft plastics in most markets. Curbside paper recycling is near-universal in the UK; soft plastic collection, while growing rapidly through supermarket take-back schemes and expanding local authority provision, is still developing. And occasionally companies like Forever Green offer a free Return 2 Recycle service.
Most LCA studies reflect this difference in their end-of-life assumptions, meaning paper receives some recycling credit while plastic does not receive equivalently.
The important point is that plastic mailers outperform paper alternatives even with that end-of-life infrastructure disadvantage factored in. The performance gap across the studies is substantial enough that closing the recycling differential — which soft plastic collection infrastructure is actively doing — would widen the advantage further.
What this means for packaging decisions
The mailer question is a specific instance of a broader pattern: the materials that carry the most negative public perception are, in most cases, the ones that perform best on rigorous environmental measurement.
This does not mean paper is never the right choice. There are applications — particularly those involving heavy, dense, or bulky items where compressive strength and robustness matter more than lightweight flexibility — where paper-based packaging performs better on a full lifecycle basis. Our Padded Paper System is a case in point. The science supports a case-by-case approach, not a blanket preference for either material.
Forever Green consult and offer impartial advice and products based on what the evidence says, what the commercial and operational requirements are, and then ultimately what the customer wants. The answer is not always the same. But it is always honest.
Yours, Forever Green :)
References: T. Bukowski, M. Dingee, Sustainability Life Cycle and Economic Impacts of Flexible Packaging in E-commerce, PTIS LLC, 2021. Lifecycle Inventory of Packaging Options for Shipment of Retail Mail-Order Soft Goods, Franklin Associates for Oregon DEQ and US EPA, 2004. LCA data synthesised with reference to the work of Dr. Chris DeArmitt PhD, FRSC, FIMMM, independent materials scientist, no industry funding. Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment E-Commerce Mailer Packaging Case Study, Flexible Packaging Association.