The problem with packaging fashion
Over the past decade, a clear narrative has taken hold: plastic is bad, paper is good. It's understandable. Images of ocean waste, political pressure, and well-meaning campaigns have shaped public opinion, and businesses have responded. Paper packaging has become a shorthand for environmental responsibility. Choosing it feels like the right thing to do.
The trouble is, feeling right and being right are not always the same thing. And in packaging, the gap between the two can be significant.
The most rigorous way to assess the true environmental impact of a packaging material isn't instinct or public opinion — it's life cycle analysis, or LCA. An LCA measures every stage of a material's existence: raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, use, end of life. It accounts for greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, water use, fossil fuel demand, and waste generated. It is the globally accepted scientific standard for comparing environmental impact, used by governments, academics, and major corporations alike.
When you apply LCA to protective packaging materials, the results consistently challenge the paper-good, plastic-bad assumption. Across dozens of independent, peer-reviewed studies, plastic film packaging — the same category of material as our air cushion films — produces lower greenhouse gas emissions, uses less energy, generates less waste, and requires less raw material than paper or cardboard alternatives of equivalent function. In the majority of applications, by a significant margin.
This is not a fringe position. It is the scientific consensus, and it has been for years.
The independent voice worth listening to...
One of the most rigorous independent reviews of this evidence comes from Dr. Chris DeArmitt, a materials scientist with a PhD, Fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and Fellowship of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. Crucially, his work is entirely unfunded — no industry sponsorship, no commercial agenda. Over several years he reviewed more than 5,000 peer-reviewed studies on plastics and the environment, and his conclusions are unambiguous.
In his book *Shattering the Plastics Illusion*, DeArmitt summarises what the LCA evidence shows across 16 different packaging and product applications: in 15 out of 16 cases, the plastic option produced fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the alternative. On average, replacing plastic packaging with alternatives increases packaging weight by 3.6 times, energy use by 2.2 times, and carbon dioxide emissions by 2.7 times. This tells us a like-for-like amount of plastic-alternative materials like paper are much more energy, water and raw material intensive. But the comparison is even more stark between air cushion and paper void fill because packing with Air reduces actual material usage by 99%.
Further to this, the effectiveness of each material, such as avoiding the environmental impact of damages and remanufacturing, will be explored later.
These are not the numbers most people expect. But they are what the evidence says.
What makes our air cushion film particularly compelling
Our air cushion films are made from the same class of material — polyethylene — that has been the subject of these LCA studies. And they already perform well on the baseline science. But there are three additional factors that make their environmental case even stronger.
1) Recycled content & Recyclable
The already favorable LCA data for soft plastics is based on 1) regular plastic, not recycled content, and 2) not being recycled. When you add these 2 factors, the picture is even greener. Our films contain 50% recycled content, meaning half the raw material demand is eliminated before the product even reaches your warehouse, while reducing waste and supporting a circular economy. They are also 100% recyclable — either through local authority soft plastic collections, supermarkets, or our own Return 2 Recycle scheme, where we send prepaid mailers and ensure used film is properly processed.
2) The air cushion multiplier
This is perhaps the most overlooked dimension of the comparison, especially when applied to void fill packaging. LCA studies that compare plastic film to paper packaging do so on a like-for-like material basis — the respective volume of material needed to do the same job, assessed across its life cycle. But an inflated air cushion is not equivalent to a sheet of paper or kraft void fill on a material basis. When inflated, an air cushion is approximately 99% air and 1% film. The packaging itself is almost entirely nothing. You are not replacing paper with plastic — you are replacing paper with air, held in shape by a sliver of recycled film. The material comparison doesn't just favour plastic; it almost ceases to be a meaningful comparison at all.
3) The protection premium
There is another less spoken about dimension of packaging LCA that can dwarf every other factor: what happens when the packaging fails? How effective it is. A damaged product doesn't just disappoint a customer. It triggers a return, a replacement, additional transport emissions, remanufacturing materials & energy, and disposal of the damaged item. The environmental cost of a single product damaged in transit is many times greater than the entire material footprint of the packaging that was supposed to protect it. Choosing the material with the right protection performance for the application is as much an environmental consideration as a commercial one. And other Blogs explore how often the cheapest is the greenest.
So when do we recommend paper?
The effectiveness of different materials for different jobs is why we recommend paper void fill — and specifically our padded paper systems — in certain cases, such as for heavy, bulky, or dense items where the protection requirements change the equation. For example in engineering, automotive, and industrial applications, where products can weigh several kilograms and need substantial cushioning resistance rather than lightweight void fill, a robust padded paper solution can be the right answer. Paper has genuine compressive strength advantages in these contexts, and recommending it where it performs better is part of what we mean by science-led advice. The higher environmental impact of the padded paper material versus air cushion packaging is more than justified if it protects large and/ or heavy components from damage, and their subsequent remanufacture, redelivery etc. Likewise, there are applications where a bespoke foam fitment is needed to protect highly fragile and/ or expensive items, where we can work with you to explore options.
Our recommendations are based on what the evidence says, and what your specific operational and commercial requirments are.
What this means in practice
When you work with Forever Green Packaging — whether as a distributor, a direct customer, or through our online shop — our starting point is always the same question: what is the genuinely lowest-impact solution, and often the lowest cost, for this specific application? That requires understanding what you're shipping, how it's shipped, what your volumes are, and what the end-of-life infrastructure looks like.
Sometimes the answer is air cushions. Often, given the science, it is. Occasionally the answer is paper. And other times something more specilaist. Either way, you'll get an honest recommendation backed by published science — not a sales pitch dressed up as sustainability advice.
That is what "Forever Green" means to us. Not the greenest-sounding option. The greenest actual option, for your products, your operation, and your customers.
*The scientific evidence referenced in this article draws on independent, peer-reviewed life cycle analysis studies and the work of Dr. Chris DeArmitt PhD, FRSC, FIMMM, author of Shattering the Plastics Illusion. Dr. DeArmitt's research is entirely self-funded with no industry sponsorship.*