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.
What the science shows
Over the past two decades, government agencies and independent research institutions across the United States, United Kingdom, Denmark, Canada, Australia and South Africa have conducted more than 24 peer-reviewed life cycle analysis studies comparing plastic packaging to paper and other alternatives. The finding is consistent across every single one of them: plastic film has the lowest overall environmental impact.
These are not industry-funded studies. They include work by the US Franklin Associates, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the UK Environment Agency, Clemson University, and the independent consultancy denkstatt — among others. Their methodologies differ, their geographies differ, and they were conducted independently over two decades. Their conclusions do not.
The aggregate picture, synthesised by Dr. Chris DeArmitt — an independent materials scientist with a PhD in chemistry, Fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and Fellowship of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, working entirely without industry funding — is unambiguous: across 15 out of 16 packaging and product applications studied, the plastic option produces 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. These numbers are not what most people expect, and they become even higher when applied specifically to protective packaging.
Yet this is what the science consistently says.
What makes our air cushion film particularly compelling
Our air cushion films are made from HDPE — high-density polyethylene — a soft plastic in the same material family and recycling category as the low-density polyethylene that has been the subject of these LCA studies. That means the scientific case built across more than 24 independent studies applies directly to our films. But HDPE carries additional material efficiency advantages over LDPE that make the environmental case even stronger still — something we explore in detail later in this series. Putting this distinction aside for now, we know they already perform very well on the baseline science. Yet there are three additional factors that make the environmental case for our films 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 which are increasing, 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.
Yours, Forever Green :)
The scientific evidence referenced in this article draws on more than 24 independent, peer-reviewed life cycle analysis studies conducted by government agencies and research institutions including Franklin Associates (US), the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the UK Environment Agency, Clemson University, and denkstatt GmbH. These studies are synthesised in the work of Dr. Chris DeArmitt PhD, FRSC, FIMMM, an independent materials scientist working without industry funding, author of Shattering the Plastics Illusion.