Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Replacing plastic with corrugated cardboard: A carbon footprint analysis of

disposable packaging in a B2B global supply chain—A case study
Nathalie Silva *, Katrin Molina-Besch
Division of Packaging Logistics, Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, Box 118, 22100, Lund, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Industry is increasingly committed to reduce its ecological footprint. One specific area of increased industrial
Cardboard interest is the use of plastic-free packaging. Plastic packaging is efficient from a supply chain perspective, but as
Carbon footprint waste risks causing disastrous environmental effects. This case study assesses the environmental impacts (from
Case study
cradle to grave) of plastic cushioning inserts vs. corrugated cardboard cushioning inserts. The cushioning options
LCA
have different measurements requiring different box sizes. The carbon footprint calculation covers the main
Packaging
Plastic phases of the packaging life cycle: manufacturing, transport and end-of-life processes. Calculation results show
that the corrugated cardboard option has the highest carbon footprint, due to weight increase along with long
transport distances and high dependence on airfreight. The results reinforce the importance of developing al­
ternatives to plastic packaging without increasing packaging weight. Managerial implications and suggestions for
policymakers are presented and discussed.

1. Introduction of after one use – a high percentage of plastic waste is mismanaged

There is an incessant demand to move goods worldwide due to
economic and population growth as well as increasingly demanding
consumer behavior. The need for packaging follows this growth because
packaging facilitates the movement of goods and, apart from its main
function, which is protection, it plays an important role in various lo­
gistics activities and their environmental performance (Silva and Påls­
son, 2022).
Packaging is highly dependent on plastics, weighting a share of 44%
of all the plastic produced in Europe in 2021 (Europe, 2022), all due to
the combination of characteristics and versatility that are typical of this
material. Plastic has appealing characteristics: “light in weight, high in
strength, strong in impact resistance, easy to form, good in viscosity,
transparent, moisture-proof, beautiful, chemical stability” (Wang and
Wang, 2021). These characteristics match many of the requisites for
optimizing supply chain efficiency, making plastic a very appealing
solution for industry.
Apart from their positive aspects (particularly in the use phase),
plastics have problematic production and disposal phases. The vast ma­
jority of plastics have fossil fuels as their main raw material and none of
the plastics used daily are biodegradable (Geyer et al., 2017). In addition
to the unsustainable short lifetime of plastic packaging – often disposed
(Geyer et al., 2017; Hopewell et al., 2009). Some of the reasons for
uncontrolled plastic litter are inappropriate and uncontrolled disposal
practices, insufficient facilities and infrastructures, added to the lack of
public awareness (Hahladakis, 2020). Consequently, large amounts of
plastic leak into the oceans. This occurs “via inland waterways, waste­
water outflows, and transport by wind or tides” (Jambeck et al., 2015),
resulting in an estimated 8 million tonnes of plastic in oceans every year
(Gallo et al., 2018) and represents a threat to ecosystems, biodiversity
and human health (Nichols and Smith, 2019).
Corrugated cardboard is a fiber-based material commonly used for
packaging, and despite displaying different characteristics, can be a
feasible alternative (Jönson, 2019, p. 38). Cardboard is relatively cheap
to produce and, unlike plastics, is biodegradable. In addition, cardboard
is available everywhere. This not only facilitates the replication of
packaging specificities by different suppliers, but also simplifies the
process of finding local manufacturers, thus reducing the risks inherent
in distant suppliers.
Along with the regulatory agencies and governments that enforce
environmental sustainability in companies, there is a build-up of pres­
sure from customers and stakeholders (Seuring and Müller, 2008). As a
result, companies are impelled to make their supply chains greener. This
is done particularly by: (1) minimizing their plastic consumption, and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nathalie.silva@plog.lth.se (N. Silva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106871
Received 24 August 2022; Received in revised form 19 November 2022; Accepted 6 January 2023
Available online 6 February 2023
0921-3449/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch
(2) reducing their carbon footprint (CF). However, the circumstances
under which these two premises support or contradict one another are
not completely intuitive. The research question (RQ) of this study
merges the two premises: How does the CF of plastic-free disposable
transport packaging (based on corrugated cardboard) compare to the CF
of conventional disposable plastic-based packaging in a life cycle
perspective?
Transport packaging is “used to ship goods from their point of origin,
such as a farm or factory, to their destination. (…) The emphasis is on pro­
tection, functional performance and shipping considerations.” (Verghese
and Lewis, 2007). The analysis presented in this paper compares the
environmental performance of three transport packaging options. Two
packaging options use plastic cushioning inserts: one made of expanded
polypropylene (EPP), and the other of expanded polyethylene (EPE) and
the third option, plastic-free, uses corrugated cardboard cushioning. For
the comparison, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was applied to assess the
CF impact of the packaging units shipped throughout all of 2020 (based
on the case company sales reports). The case study product is moved in a
B2B outbound logistics setting. This setting is less predictable, less
flexible, and less controlled by the case company than an inbound
setting. In other words, customers’ orders are not set in previous
agreements, which means that ordered quantities, shipment locations,
urgency, etc., are uncertain and unexpected.
1.1. Literature overview
Previous research on transport packaging has focused mainly on
comparing reusable plastic packaging with one-way corrugated card­
board, even though transport packaging heavily relies on disposable
plastic. However, the literature diverges in the comparison of the
environmental impacts of these two options.
Albrecht et al. (2013) examined a case in Europe where disposable
cardboard boxes are compared with reusable plastic crates. For the
reusable packaging, reverse logistics involves 700 km of extra distance.
The study concludes that the reusable plastic option leads to lower
environmental impacts and lower costs. However, it was assumed that
≈80% of the cardboard is incinerated with energy recovery and the
remaining ≈20% is recycled, which contradicts European statistics
(Fig. 2). Abejón et al. (2020) present the opposite assumption: 80% of
cardboard packaging waste is recycled and 20% is incinerated with
energy recovery. Distance-wise, this supply chain is much shorter
(within Spain), with reverse transport being 100 km. The Global
Warming Potential (GWP) of disposable cardboard boxes is around 10
times higher than the GWP of the reusable plastic crates. Accorsi et al.
(2022) include disposable plastic packaging in their analysis. Results
show that disposable plastic packaging represents the highest GWP (20
years) of the three options. Moreover, after 15 uses, reusable plastic
crates lead to a lower GWP than disposable cardboard boxes.
In another case study, Lo-Iacono-Ferreira et al. (2021) conclude that,
even if plastic crates are reused 50 times, one-way cardboard boxes still
produce lower emissions. The case study connects Almeria (Spain) and
Hamburg (Germany), making transport (road) the activity with the
highest CF effects as to reusable crates. For the one-way, considerably
lighter, cardboard solution, transport does not have so much impact,
making manufacturing the activity with the highest impact. Similarly,
Koskela et al. (2014) found that one-way cardboard boxes lead to lower
emissions due to the impact of extra weight in reusable plastic solutions.
With a sensitive analysis, the authors showed that, even if distances were
50% shorter, the plastic option would still lead to higher CO2 emissions
than the cardboard option.
Sasaki et al. (2022) highlight the importance of considering protec­
tion levels when comparing packaging alternatives. They conclude that
reusable plastic packaging and one-way cardboard boxes had similar
environmental performances. However, the former leads to higher food
loss. This aspect is vital for any product that can be damaged during
transport and handling.
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871
All in all, discussion in relevant literature revolves around the
question of whether savings from reduced manufacturing and produced
waste by returnable packaging counterbalance emissions added from
reverse logistics (transport, sorting, cleaning) (Accorsi et al., 2022).
Studies seem to demonstrate that, in long supply chains, one-way
packaging may be favourable, whereas in short chains returnable
packaging is preferable (Albrecht et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the fact
that different LCA databases, system boundaries and assumptions are
considered in different studies makes it highly complex to extrapolate
precise patterns between the different case studies (Villanueva and
Wenzel, 2007).
As mentioned, previous research is mainly focused on trying to
clarify the environmental implications between returnable plastics and
one-way cardboard transport packaging, and does not pay much atten­
tion to the potential trade-offs between disposable plastic packaging and
disposable packaging made of other materials such as corrugated card­
board. This study aims to bridge that research gap.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methods
applied and the assumptions for the analyses. Section 3 reports the re­
sults, followed by a discussion of results and practical implications.
Conclusions are drawn and future research gaps are identified in Section
5.
2. Methods
In this study, a comparative LCA of three different packaging options
is performed. The options consist of a corrugated cardboard box
(different for each option) and cushioning inserts made of different
materials: Option 1 uses EPP plastic, Option 2 EPE plastic, and Option 3
(plastic-free) corrugated cardboard. Calculations are based on the
assumption that packaging is disposed of after one use.
2.1. Case study
This study emerges from collaboration with a company in the ICT
(Information and Communication Technology) business. The company
aims to redesign its packaging to be plastic free, and wants to assess the
environmental effects, particularly the CF. This case study investigates
the distribution of an ICT product (unit weight 32 kg) that is individually
packaged for shipment. The product is installed and used outdoors, and
is therefore, robustly built. Nevertheless, the product has drop sensi­
tivity in supply chain conditions. To ensure proper levels of protection,
handling, and transport strength, the case company assesses packaging
options by applying a sequence of standardized tests. These include, for
example, testing the packaging when it is manually handled, during
vehicle vibration, and in relation to stackability (based on protocols such
as ETSI EN 300 019-2-2). All three packaging options passed all tests; it
is assumed that all perform with similar protection levels. This ICT
product was selected because (1) data were available (plastic-free
packaging option was tested and validated) and (2) the product and
supply chain represent a typical example of company products, allowing
us to highlight similar implications to those applicable for other
corporate typical products.
Even though the two plastic cushioning insert options are currently
used for the selected ICT product, the EPP option (Option 1) is not
appropriate for all the production plants, as it requires a high-cost tool to
rework the cushioning. Consequently, for the case company plants with
relatively low demand, the procurement of such a tool would entail an
unsustainable increase in the packaging cost. In these plants, Option 2
(EPE cushion insert) is used. In this study, all three packaging options
are compared for all orders of 2020 (disregarding the fact that only
certain plants use EPE in practice). In other words, emissions were
calculated for all orders if the EPP option was used, if the EPE option was
used, and if the corrugated cardboard option was used.
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch
2.2. Goal and scope
The aim of this study is to compare the environmental performance
from cradle to grave of three different packaging options and to quantify
the extension of CF implications. The functional unit of the study is the
packaging material used in the boxes and cushioning to move the
product through the supply chain for 1 year. The different cushioning
materials call for different designs, which requires different box di­
mensions, therefore, the need to also include the boxes in the analysis.
The yearly based functional unit allows the case company to measure the
actual impact of the three packaging options and more easily relate it to
the company’s goal of reducing its CF (also set on a basis of CO2 eq. per
year). Integrating the impact of sales volume in the equation enables a
more realistic extension of the environmental implications (i.e., the
impact of a change on a high-runner product will be more pronounced
than on a low-runner product).
2.3. System boundaries
The model developed for this LCA encompasses all the main pack­
aging processes from production of the material to its disposal (see
Fig. 1). The analysis starts with the material manufacturing, followed by
the transport that connect the Manufacturers to the Packaging suppliers, to
Case company plants, to the Distribution hubs, and finally to the Customers.
2.4. Data and assumptions – life cycle inventory
The inputs for the LCA model were collected from three different
sources: the case company, Ecoinvent® database (v.3.8), and relevant
literature. All calculations were performed using an Excel® worksheet,
where a model of the case study was developed. The CF was calculated
based on the GWP for 100 years (GWP 100a) (in CO2 eq.) using the IPCC
2013 100a methodology. To complement the CF analysis, four addi­
tional environmental impact categories were included: terrestrial eco­
toxicity, human toxicity, marine ecotoxicity and fossil depletion. All four
were calculated using the ReCiPe Midpoint methodology (H) (Huij­
bregts et al., 2017).
Since the case company purchases packaging material from several
suppliers, data for packaging material manufacturing processes in
Europe (RER) and the rest of the world (ROW) were calculated based on
the volume and locations in 2020. For end-of-life processes and trans­
ports, global data (GLO) were used, and when unavailable, ROW data
were used instead.
Fig. 1. Processes considered in calculating CF and other impact category indicators for three packaging options from manufacturing to end-of-life. All three
packaging options consist of a corrugated cardboard box and cushioning: Option 1 uses EPP plastic cushioning, Option 2 EPE plastic cushioning, and Option 3
corrugated cardboard cushioning. The relative packaging volumes are also depicted.
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871
2.4.1. Material and packaging production
For corrugated cardboard, the dataset includes the manufacturing
process up to the finished packaging material (papermill + production of
corrugated cardboard). Regarding EPP and EPE cushioning, both are
foamed from plastic pellets: EPP is foamed in a mould and EPE is foamed
into a simple sheet that is cut and thermo-welded afterwards. Based on
the recommendation of the packaging supplier, cutting and thermo-
welding are disregarded in the calculation, since their impact is rela­
tively small. The manufacturing process for both EPP and EPE thus in­
cludes two steps: (1) manufacturing the granules, and (2) polymer
foaming (see Table SI 2A).
2.4.2. Logistics
The GWP of transport is calculated based on the packaging weight
(the weight of the product inside is disregarded). The data for transport
modes and the relative (weighted) distance travelled were collected by
the company and include all the shipments in 2020 from packaging
manufacturers to the case company customers. Warehousing processes
(such as internal movements) and utilities were disregarded for
simplification reasons as well as transport to the installation site. The
packaging movement from Packaging suppliers to Case company plants is
done by road; the average distance is approximately 250 km. The
transport between Distribution hubs and Customers is done by road, sea
and air; distances vary between 30–3500 km, 400–10,000 km, and
1500–10,000 km, respectively.
2.4.3. End-of-life processes
The initial approach for the analysis of the end-of-life processes was
to gather WM statistics for each of the three materials. Due to the lack of
available data, the data applied to EPP and EPE are based on general
plastic WM data (see Fig. 2). For some regions, WM statistics were not
available particularly for the management of cardboard waste in Asia
and Latin America, for those cases, the WM statistics for unsorted waste
were considered instead. Data were collected from several sources
(Table SI 1).
As mentioned, the environmental impacts of end-of-life processes
were calculated based on customers’ locations. During 2020, the prod­
uct was delivered to customers worldwide: 56% located in Europe, 22%
in East Asia, 15% in Africa, and 5% in Latin America. The remaining 2%
were split between Central Asia, South Asia and North America. Based
on WM statistics for different regions, the split translates as follows. For
corrugated cardboard: 66% was recycled, 10% incinerated and 24%
landfilled. For plastics, 31% recycled, 28% incinerated and 41%
landfilled.
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871

Fig. 2. Statistical distribution of end-of-life processes for plastic and cardboard waste in different regions of the world assumed in the study.

In addition to the material-based assumptions, the following as­
sumptions were made about the end-of-life processes:
■ Combustion – Due to the lack of data, it was assumed that in
Europe and North America, 100% of burnt waste goes through
municipal incineration, whereas in Africa, Asia and Latin America
combustion always happens in an open burning setting.
■ Recycling – Emissions and savings from recycling were not taken
into account. Recycling is considered the manufacturing process
of another product and any emissions/savings from it should
therefore be allocated to the LCA of the product using the recycled
material (cut-off approach). For this waste stream, a distance of
150 km to the recycling facilities (by road) was considered.
■ Landfill – Landfill emissions vary depending on the process
(unsanitary landfill, open dump and sanitary landfill). To use WM
statistics from the What a Waste report (Kaza et al., 2018), it was
necessary to alter two terms to match the terminology used in
Ecoinvent®. The term “controlled landfill” is defined in the report
as “more stringently operated facilities” and “almost exclusively
the domain of high- and upper-middle-income countries”. This
matches the description of the term “sanitary landfill” in Ecoin­
vent® (Doka, 2009). “Uncategorized/unspecified landfill” is the
term used in the report for landfills and matches the description of
“category unknown” in Ecoinvent®. It was assumed that 50%
were sanitary and 50% unsanitary landfills.
3. Results
Overall, Fig. 3A shows that (percentage) shares of the different
processes follow the same pattern in the three packaging options:
manufacturing is the process that dominates CF followed by transport,
and finally the end-of-life. The results highlight the relevance of trans­
port in long supply chains as the share of transport in shorter supply

Fig. 3. GWP 100a of the three packaging options from manufacturing to end-of-life based on data from 2020. A) share (%) of three processes (manufacturing,
transport and end-of-life), B) cumulative emissions of the three options throughout the supply chain. All three packaging options consist of a corrugated cardboard
box and cushioning: Option 1 uses EPP plastic cushioning, Option 2 EPE plastic cushioning, and Option 3 corrugated cardboard cushioning.

4
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch
chains is substantially lower (Molina-Besch, 2017). The high depen­
dence of outbound logistics on long distances (customers worldwide)
makes emissions very sensitive to any shipping weight variations
(Fig. 3B). If the total weight of Option 3 was reduced by 12% (i.e., to
4.25 kg) total emissions would equal those of Option 2. To reduce Op­
tion 3 emissions to Option 1 levels, the quantity of corrugated cardboard
would have to be almost halved.
3.1. Manufacturing
Option 1 has the least harmful manufacturing process of the three,
and manufacturing emissions are split: 69% from the corrugated card­
board box and 31% from EPP. In Option 2, where the amount of
corrugated cardboard is almost three times the amount of EPE, the GWP
from manufacturing corrugated cardboard is the same as from the EPE
(50% each) (see Fig. 3A). Option 3 has lower manufacturing emissions
than Option 2 even though Option 3 packaging requires almost twice the
amount of corrugated cardboard, emphasizing the high emissions from
manufacturing plastics compared to manufacturing corrugated
cardboard.
3.2. Transport
Overall, the transport process leads to high CF emissions with shares
between 30% and 36%. Although the impact of connecting supply chain
entities to Case company plants is minimal (local supply chain), down­
stream from that node impacts are enormous (global supply chain),
Fig. 4. Relative performance of the three packaging options on four impact category indicators: A) terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP), B) human toxicity (HTP), C) marine
ecotoxicity (METP) and D) fossil depletion. Option 1 EPP plastic, Option 2 EPE plastic, Option 3 corrugated cardboard.
5
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871
weighing between 97% and 99% of total transport emissions (30% from
the movement from Case company plants to Distribution hubs and 67–69%
from these to Customers). Up until Distribution hubs, Option 2 is the
worst-performing packaging option, but thereafter, Option 3 is worst.
This is mainly due to the dependence on airfreight used to connect some
customers. Airfreight represents around 9% of the shipments to Cus­
tomers, and causes between 80 and 82% of the total transport impact.
Sea and road transport have a share of 30% and 62%, respectively.
3.3. End-of-life
Regarding the impacts of combustion, burning plastics is environ­
mentally more harmful than burning cardboard, particularly under
“municipal incineration” where EPP and EPE mean about 80 and 95
times more CF emissions than the same process for corrugated card­
board. Nevertheless, the impact of landfilling corrugated cardboard is
relatively higher than landfilling plastics.
3.4. Additional environmental impact categories
To complement the analysis of the environmental implications of the
three packaging options, four other impact category indicators were
assessed: terrestrial ecotoxicity, human toxicity, marine ecotoxicity and
fossil depletion. These four impact category indicators were chosen to
include the three impact classes: Ecological (terrestrial ecotoxicity and
marine ecotoxicity), Human health (human toxicity) and Resources
(fossil depletion) (Carvalho et al., 2014).
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch
Fig. 4A-D illustrate that Option 1 is consistently the lowest-impact
solution, and that Option 3 is the second best in three of the four cate­
gories. The results are shown as relative values in relation to Option 1
(normalized to 100%).
Starting with Fig. 4A, the results for terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP) are
dominated by the end-of-life processes. The impact Option 3 has on
manufacturing is almost double that of the two plastic-containing
packaging options (Options 1 and 2). Option 3 thus becomes the
worst- performing packaging option.
In Fig. 4B (human toxicity, HTP), the total impact is dominated by
emissions from manufacturing. When Options 2 and 3 are compared, the
manufacturing impact from Option 3 is lower than that of Option 2, even
though the latter has less material. Similarly, when the end-of-life
impact is assessed, plastics result in higher emissions than those of
corrugated cardboard waste. For HTP, the end-of-life impact of Option 2
is more than double that of Option 3. Option 1 uses only 0.5 kg of EPP
per packaging item and almost half of the corrugated cardboard used in
Option 3, but Option 1′ s impact at end-of-life is still considerably higher.
For marine ecotoxicity (METP), Fig. 4C illustrates an important
disadvantage of plastics compared to corrugated cardboard at end-of-
life. The disparity in this comparison is substantial and reveals one of
the main issues with plastics. There might even be an underestimation of
the real impacts of plastic waste on marine ecosystems as data only
consider some emissions from unorganized disposal of plastic waste
(open dump) and disregard littering and leakage of plastic waste into
nature in countries with organized waste collection.
In the fossil depletion category (Fig. 4D), impacts are caused by
transport and manufacturing. It is evident that Options 1 and 2 result in
higher fossil depletion due to the production of plastics, whereas Option
3 has a relatively lower impact. The advantage of Option 3 in the form of
lower fossil depletion from corrugated cardboard manufacturing is,
however, outweighed by the increase in transport energy use due to
higher packaging weight.
3.5. Scenario analyses
The following scenarios were analysed to test the effect of variability
from some of the input parameters on the results of the LCA. In
consultation with the case company, the following two parameters were
identified due to their high variability: 1) the share of airfreight trans­
port and 2) the end-of-life of the disposed-of packaging materials.
3.6. Transport scenarios
To delve more into the impact of transports, and particularly
airfreight, two scenarios were modelled changing the percentage of
airfreight to connect Distribution hubs to Customers (some 9% of the
shipments in the original analysis). In the first scenario, half of the
airfreight (≈4%) was tested, and in the second scenario, double (≈18%).
Fig. 5. Comparison of the results when airfreight transport scenarios are applied: A) original analysis, around 9% airfreight, B) half airfreight scenario (4%), C)
double airfreight (18%). Option 1 EPP plastic, Option 2 EPE plastic, Option 3 corrugated cardboard.
6
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871
For both scenarios, the differences were split evenly between road and
sea transport. These scenarios were defined in consultation with the case
company to ensure they reflected realistic set-ups. Based on the com­
pany’s evaluation, a zero-airfreight scenario is currently not relevant
since urgent shipments and remote customer locations with poor road
transport infrastructure cannot be completely avoided.
As mentioned, transport is largely responsible for most environ­
mental impacts in this case study. In the original analysis (Fig. 5A),
transport, after manufacturing, is the process that releases most CO2 eq.,
around one third of the total emissions. When halving airfreight is tested
(Fig. 5B), the transport share is reduced by 6% for Options 1 and 2, and
by 7% for Option 3. This lowers considerably the gap between Options 2
and 3 when compared to the original analysis. In the second scenario
(see Fig. 5C) – with a double share of air transport – total emissions
increased by about 20% for Option 3. In this scenario, transport emis­
sions represent almost half of the total emissions for Option 3.
3.7. End-of-life scenarios
LCA studies commonly apply end-of-life scenarios (100% combus­
tion, 100% recycling and 100% landfill) to explore the impacts of spe­
cific end-of-life routes in more detail. In Fig. 6, three end-of-life
scenarios are compared to the original analysis.
Fig. 6B depicts the 100% combustion scenario. The graph shows that
Option 2 has the highest impact. Although plastic is only 26% of the
total material used, 89% of the emissions result from burning EPE and
only 11% are from burning corrugated cardboard. The end-of-life
emissions for Option 1 are split in a similar way: 84% of the CF result
from burning EPP, and 16% from the corrugated cardboard. Option 3
shows that the combustion of corrugated cardboard leads to much lower
impacts than the combustion of plastics. This is because the former re­
leases biogenic CO2 (not considered a greenhouse gas [GHG] emission)
unlike the fossil CO2 released from burning fossil-based plastics.
In the 100% recycling scenario (see Fig. 6C) – and following the same
cut-off approach used in the original analyses – the emissions at end-of-
life are limited to the emissions from transport of waste to a recycling
facility. Those emissions represent less than 1% for all three options,
thus they do not show in the graph.
The graph in Fig. 6D displays the impacts of 100% landfill.
Comparing this scenario with the original analysis (see Fig. 6A), the
difference in emissions is about 300 tonnes more for Options 1 and 2,
and 600 tonnes more for Option 3. In contrast to the 100% combustion
scenario (see Fig. 6B), corrugated cardboard has a massive impact in the
landfill scenario: in Options 1 and 2 the emissions are mostly caused by
corrugated cardboard: 99% and 98%, respectively. This is because the
latter results in the release of methane (CH4) from the anaerobic
degradation of cardboard – a gas that is, after CO2, the most relevant
greenhouse gas for anthropogenic climate change (Grubert and Brandt,
2019). To complement Fig. 6D, the impact was also calculated for all
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch
Fig. 6. Comparison of the results when end-of-life scenarios are applied: A) original analysis, B) 100% combustion scenario, C) 100% recycling scenario, D) 100%
landfill scenario. Option 1 EPP plastic, Option 2 EPE plastic, Option 3 corrugated cardboard.
material disposed in (1) sanitary landfill (red dash line) and (2) unsan­
itary landfill (blue dash line). Unsanitary landfills result in even higher
CH4 emissions, thus increasing the gap further between plastic pack­
aging options (Options 1 and 2) and the corrugated cardboard option
(Option 3).
4. Discussion and implications
Many companies are currently looking for alternatives to plastics in
transport packaging to avoid negative environmental impacts. Fiber-
based packaging such as corrugated cardboard is often seen as a green
alternative to plastics. Firstly, fiber-based packaging materials are made
from renewable resources with well-established environmental organi­
sations (such as the Forest Stewardship Council) that certify sustainable
management of forest resources. Secondly, from an end-of-life
perspective, fiber-based packaging waste is generally easier to recycle
than plastics waste. In 2019 in Europe, for example, around 82% of
paper and cardboard packaging was recycled; twice as much (percent­
age-wise) as plastic packaging (Eurostat, 2020). Moreover, while
fossil-fuel based plastics release fossil CO2 when incinerated, fiber-based
materials release biogenic CO2, considered a renewable source (Mohn
et al., 2012). Despite these potential benefits of fiber-based packaging,
the results of our case study illustrate that replacing plastics with
fiber-based materials is not a risk-free environmental choice. The weight
increase resulted in more transport energy consumption and higher
transport emissions, potentiated by (1) transport mode and (2) distances
travelled. In contrast to these findings, Accorsi et al. (2022) found that
disposable plastic crate option lead to higher GWP than the fiber-based
option. Three points seem to justify those results. (1) Even though the
weight of both solutions is similar, the manufacturing plastic process is
7
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871
50% more pollutant. (2) While corrugated cardboard packaging is
shipped from the packaging supplier in “stacks of carton sheets (between
700 and 1000 per pallet)”, disposable plastic crates are bulky and rigid,
leading to poor vehicle utilisation. (3) 96% of cardboard waste does not
contribute to end-of-life emissions, as recycling emissions for that ma­
terial were not included in the study.
Another important environmental drawback of fiber-based pack­
aging shown in our case study is that of potential methane emissions
from landfills. Since fiber-based materials are biodegradable, they
degrade and release CH4 under anaerobic conditions in landfills. CH4
has a characterisation factor of 28 when converted to CO2-eq. (i.e., 1 kg
of CH4 equals 28 kg of CO2) for GWP 100a (IPCC, 2014 p. 64). From a CF
perspective, the combination of higher packaging weight and potential
methane emissions from landfills can outweigh the reduction of GHG
from material manufacturing in the comparison between corrugated
cardboard and plastics transport packaging. In countries where
fiber-based packaging is either recycled or incinerated (Accorsi et al.,
2022), the disadvantage of potential methane emissions from landfilled
cardboard is eliminated.
4.1. Global supply chains vs. returnable packaging
Reverse logistics for packaging is challenging, especially in global
supply chains. This has been acknowledged in previous research: the
additional distances travelled make returnable packaging problematic
(Albrecht et al., 2013), even when we consider the benefits of reducing
the consumption of packaging materials (Battini et al., 2016). Factoring
that reusable packaging is often heavier, this exacerbates the environ­
mental impacts of transport emissions (Koskela et al., 2014; Lo-Iaco­
no-Ferreira et al., 2021). Calculations for reverse logistics are often
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch
assumed as dedicated trips, but the paradigm should be reconsidered
with the implementation of renting packaging (González-Boubeta et al.,
2018), standardization (Kuo et al., 2019) or shared packaging systems.
However, in settings like our case study, where the shipments are not to
a fixed location, implementing reverse logistics is even more complex.
One solution could be implementing hubs to collect packaging.
4.2. Practical implications
The results of our case study highlight that the selection of packaging
materials for transport packaging leads to environmental trade-offs.
These results stress that whenever possible, companies should perform
LCAs to evaluate the environmental consequences of switching pack­
aging materials (Thompson et al., 2009). The following general rec­
ommendations for practitioners are made.
• Companies should try to select packaging materials for transport
packaging by considering the conditions in the specific supply.
Important factors to consider are transport distances and transport
mode, and the waste management situation at the customer location.
• In supply chains that rely on airfreight, companies should be careful
about replacing plastics packaging with heavier packaging materials
because this risks increasing overall GHG emissions. If airfreight
cannot be avoided, companies should evaluate and try to balance the
risks of increased transport GHG emissions against the risks of
contributing to plastic waste leakage into natural ecosystems.
• In supply chains that rely on road and rail transports, replacing
plastics packaging with heavier cardboard packaging appears to be
less problematic, especially if GHG emissions from material
manufacturing and EOL are lower for the cardboard alternative.
• When replacing plastics packaging with cardboard/fiber-based
packaging, companies should encourage their customers to sort
cardboard waste for recycling and support them in finding buyers/
recycling facilities to minimize potential methane emissions from
landfilled cardboard packaging.
4.3. Policy implications
Due to the adverse environmental impacts of leaking plastics, there is
a considerable interest in regulating the use of this packaging material.
The results of our case study underscore that policymakers must pay
attention to the potential risks of burden shifting when the use of plastics
packaging is prohibited or when the use of alternative packaging ma­
terials is encouraged through regulative measures or economic in­
struments. To minimize the risks of burden shifting in connection with
packaging or plastics policies, the following recommendations for poli­
cymakers are given.
• Policies should encourage companies and public purchasing to assess
the environmental impact of transport packaging with a complete
life-cycle perspective (Zhu et al., 2022) instead of steering them to­
wards the use of certain packaging materials.
• It would be worthwhile to simultaneously reform plastic policies
with other policies on the transport of goods to avoid burden shifting
(Morfeldt et al., 2021; Lindfors and Ammenberg, 2021). If such
transport is fossil free, at least from a CF perspective, the use of
heavier packaging materials is less problematic.
• It is important that waste management policies are aligned with
packaging policies to ensure that packaging material alternatives to
plastics can be collected and preferably recycled with minimal
environmental impact. Steering industry towards the use of biode­
gradable packaging materials without simultaneously supporting the
development of appropriate waste treatment infrastructure for these
materials, risks increasing GHG emissions from landfills and waste
dumps (Thompson et al., 2009).
8
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871
5. Conclusions, limitations and future research
This article explores the implications of the carbon footprint (CF)
from manufacturing to end-of-life (cradle to grave) of three different
packaging options applied in a B2B global supply chain: two of them
using plastic cushioning (one with EPP, one with EPE), and a plastic-free
option using corrugated cardboard.
For a B2B outbound logistics setting like our case study, where
products are packed and shipped to customers worldwide, transport has
a huge impact on the environment. This is particularly due to air ship­
ments that can significantly increase the CF of a company.
In our case study, the plastic-free option (the heaviest option of the
three), results in the highest CF while the lightest packaging option
(with EPP cushioning) has the lowest total CF. From a CF perspective,
the results show that plastics have two major advantages: 1) they are
light-weight (same protection with less material) which translates into
lower transport emissions, and 2) the landfilling of plastic causes a
fraction of the CF compared to corrugated cardboard: plastics do not
degrade as do fiber-based materials. The proposed corrugated cardboard
option means an increase of 35% (compared to the heavier plastic
packaging option), and reducing the weight by 12% would balance total
emissions of both options. Researchers, companies and politicians must
find ways to evaluate the risks of increased GHG emissions from trans­
port and landfilling of biodegradable transport packaging in relation to
the risks of leaked non-biodegradable plastic packaging waste.
5.1. Limitations and future research
As with all LCA case studies, it is important to recognize that the
presented quantified results rely on input data and results have limited
generalisability. Moreover, the assumptions made (particularly for the
end-of-life) have a strong impact on the results, so it is relevant to
highlight that different assumptions would have led to different results.
Firstly, it must be acknowledged that there are currently no LCA
methods that quantify the environmental impact of non-biodegradable
materials that have leaked into nature (Chitaka and von Blottnitz,
2021). Recent studies are emerging that aim to close this gap by
developing such methods (e.g., Maga et al., 2022). Comparing
fiber-based waste to plastic waste assumes that higher negative envi­
ronmental impacts result from leakage into nature of the latter than the
former. Plastic waste leaking into nature has five harmful effects (van
Emmerik and Schwarz, 2020): (1) ingestion of plastics, (2) entanglement
of plastics, (3) leakage of toxic additives and accumulation of toxins, (4)
breakdown in microplastics, and (5) human livelihood (e.g., through
increased flood risk in urban areas). In contrast, fiber-based packaging is
biodegradable and when nature is littered with it, the material de­
composes at a relatively fast rate (≈1 year). Nonetheless, substances
such as printing inks or wet-strength chemicals in fiber-based packaging
are often not biodegradable; the release of fiber-based packaging into
nature should therefore be prevented. Overall, considering the biode­
gradability of fiber-based packaging materials, we can assume that these
materials do not contribute to an accumulation of man-made substances
in ecosystems in the same order of magnitude as plastics packaging litter
does.
Secondly, due to the fragmentary nature of waste management
statistics in many countries, there is currently great uncertainty about
the amount of packaging waste that ends up in landfills and open dumps.
In addition, there is uncertainty about how waste ends up being burnt
because of mismanagement (Cogut, 2016). Indeed, not taking unorga­
nized open burning of packaging waste into consideration favours
plastics in two ways: (1) open burnt plastics waste contribute to fossil
CO2 emissions, and (2) burning of fiber-based packaging prevents
anaerobic degradation/methane emissions from landfills or open
dumps.
Lastly, we must also consider that there is great variability and un­
certainty in the actual decomposition of fiber-based packaging in
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch
landfills since biodegradation is affected by specific landfill conditions
(Jain et al., 2021). In our case study, data from Ecoinvent® was used for
all waste management processes. A detailed analysis of Ecoinvent®
datasets and assumptions, in terms of the biodegradation of fiber-based
packaging under landfill conditions and a comparison to other data
sources was out of scope.
Based on the limitations of the case study, the following research
gaps were identified.
• Transport emissions based on volume
The calculation of transport emissions in this case study was carried
out based on packaging weight. This decision assumed that most of the
transports in the supply chain reach their weight limit before they are
completely full. Nevertheless, in other cases, it may be more appropriate
to analyse transport emissions based on packaging volume, especially
for cases where volume seems to be more problematic than weight.
• Impact of transport in the LCA of packaging
In many packaging LCAs, the impact of transport is relatively low
compared to the impact of packaging material production and end-of-
life (e.g. Lo-Iacono-Ferreira et al., 2021). However, as this case study
and other LCAs have shown (e.g. Koskela et al., 2014), the impact of
transport can be quite high on long transport distances, especially if
airfreight is used. Future research should examine the relation between
key packaging characteristics (such as weight and volume), transport
distances, and transport modes to gain a better understanding of the
drivers of GHG emissions under different supply chain conditions.
• Lack of data about waste treatment routes in developing
countries
There is a lack of data about the actual routes of waste in many parts
of the world. Official waste treatment statistics usually show the amount
of waste that is managed, but data is lacking on the high volume that
does not reach waste treatment facilities where waste is landfilled,
recycled, or incinerated. The lack of such data also constitutes a barrier
for proper application of LCAs. There is a call for data collection and
more research to clarify the end-of-life waste routes in developing
countries that have a limited capacity of organized waste treatment and
where informal waste pickers etc. are common. An example of such
uncertainty is the cardboard waste that is picked from open dumps and
burnt in households as an energy source.
• Cost analysis
Future research should also analyse the impact on life cycle costs
(LCCs) to clarify the financial implications of replacing plastics with
other materials in transport packaging and patterns that illustrate con­
ditions linking economic and environmental impacts (e.g. Albrecht
et al., 2013; Accorsi et al., 2014). It affects not only packaging materials
costs but has also has a direct influence on transport costs, handling
costs, and WM costs.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nathalie Silva: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Katrin Molina-Besch:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Data curation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106871.
References
Abejón, R., Bala, A., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Aldaco, R., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., 2020. When
plastic packaging should be preferred: Life cycle analysis of packages for fruit and
vegetable distribution in the Spanish peninsular market. Resources Conservation and
Recycling 155, 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104666.
Accorsi, R., Battarra, I., Guidani, B., Manzini, R., Ronzoni, M., Volpe, L., 2022.
Augmented spatial LCA for comparing reusable and recyclable food packaging
containers networks. Journal of Cleaner Production 375, 21. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134027.
Accorsi, R., Cascini, A., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., Mora, C., 2014. Economic and
environmental assessment of reusable plastic containers: A food catering supply
chain case study. International Journal of Production Economics 152, 88–101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.014.
Albrecht, S., Brandstetter, P., Beck, T., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., Grönman, K., Baitz, M.,
Deimling, S., Sandilands, J., Fischer, M., 2013. An extended life cycle analysis of
packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment 18 (8), 1549–1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-
0590-4.
Battini, D., Calzavara, M., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., 2016. Sustainable Packaging
Development for Fresh Food Supply Chains. Packaging Technology and Science 29
(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2185.
Carvalho, A., Mimoso, A., Mendes, A., Matos, H., 2014. From a literature review to a
framework for environmental process impact assessment index. Journal of Cleaner
Production 64, 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.010.
Chitaka, T., von Blottnitz, H., 2021. Development of a method for estimating product-
specific leakage propensity and its inclusion into the life cycle management of plastic
products. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 26 (7), 1431–1438. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01905-1.
Cogut A., 2016. Open Burning of Waste: A Global Health Disaster, Report by R20 Regions
of Climate Action.
Doka, G., 2009. Life Cycles Inventory of Waste Treatment Services. Ecoinvent report No.
13. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf.
Europe, P, 2022. Plastics – the Facts 2022. An analysis of European plastics production,
demand and waste data. Association of Plastic Manufacturers. Brussels, Belgium. pp.
22.
Eurostat, 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasmun/defa
ult/table?lang=en.
Gallo, F., Fossi, C., Weber, R., Santillo, D., Sousa, J., Ingram, I., Nadal, A., Romano, D.
(2018). Marine litter plastics and microplastics and their toxic chemicals
components: the need for urgent preventive measures. Environmental Sciences
Europe, 30, 14. doi:10.1186/s12302-018-0139-z.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J., Law, K., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made.
Science Advances 3 (7). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
Gonzalez-Boubeta, I., Fernandez-Vazquez-Noguerol, M., Dominguez-Caamano, P., Prado-
Prado, J., 2018. Economic and Environmental Packaging Sustainability: A Case
Study. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management-Jiem 11 (2), 229–238.
https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2529.
Grubert, E., Brandt, A., 2019. Three considerations for modeling natural gas system
methane emissions in life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 222,
760–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.096.
Hahladakis, J., 2020. Delineating and preventing plastic waste leakage in the marine and
terrestrial environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27 (11),
12830–12837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08139-y.
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E., 2009. Plastics recycling: challenges and
opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences
364 (1526), 2115–2126. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311.
Huijbregts, M.A., Steinmann, Z., Elshout, P., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., Zijp, M.,
Hollander, A., van Zelm, R., 2017. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact
assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 22 (2), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.
IPCC, 2014. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team. In:
Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland (eds.)]p.151.
Jain, P., Wally, J., Townsend, T., Krause, M., Tolaymat, T., 2021. Greenhouse gas
reporting data improves understanding of regional climate impact on landfill
methane production and collection. Plos One 16 (2). https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0246334.
N. Silva and K. Molina-Besch
Jambeck, J., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R.,
Law, K., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223),
768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Jönson, G., 2019. Wellpappförpackningens historia och framtid. Skogsindustriernas
industrihistoriska utskotts skriftserie p 38.
Kaza, S., Yao, Lisa., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., 2018. Urban Development. What a
Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. World Bank. ©
World Bank, Washington, DC, 2018.
Koskela, S., Dahlbo, H., Judl, J., Korhonen, M., Niininen, M., 2014. Reusable plastic crate
or recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems. Journal of
Cleaner Production 69, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.045.
Kuo, T., Chiu, M., Chung, W., & Yang, T. (2019). The circular economy of LCD panel
shipping in a packaging logistics system. Resources Conservation and Recycling,
149, 435-444. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.022.
Lindfors, A., Ammenberg, J., 2021. Using national environmental objectives in green
public procurement: Method development and application on transport procurement
in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.124821.
Lo-Iacono-Ferreira, V., Viñoles-Cebolla, R., Bastante-Ceca, M., Capuz-Rizo, S., 2021.
Carbon Footprint Comparative Analysis of Cardboard and Plastic Containers Used
for the International Transport of Spanish Tomatoes. Sustainability 13 (5). https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13052552.
Maga, D., Galafton, C., Blömer, J., Thonemann, N., Özdamar, A., Bertling, J., 2022.
Methodology to address potential impacts of plastic emissions in life cycle
assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 27 (3), 469–491. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02040-1.
Mohn, J., Szidat, S., Zeyer, K., Emmenegger, L., 2012. Fossil and biogenic CO2 from
waste incineration based on a yearlong radiocarbon study. Waste Management 32
(8), 1516–1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.04.002.
Molina-Besch, K., 2017. Transport efficiency of packaging in food supply chains – does it
matter in a life cycle perspective? Proceedings of NOFOMA Conference 2017, Lund,
Sweden.
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 191 (2023) 106871
Morfeldt, J., Kurland, S., Johansson, D., 2021. Carbon footprint impacts of banning cars
with internal combustion engines. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and
Environment 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102807.
Nichols, W., Smith, N., 2019. Waste Generation and Recycling Indices 2019 Overview
and findings. Verisk Maplecroft.
Sasaki, Y., Orikasa, T., Nakamura, N., Hayashi, K., Yasaka, Y., Makino, N., Shobatake, K.,
Koide, S., Shiina, T., 2022. Determination of the most environmentally friendly
packaging for peach during transportation by modeling the relationship between
food loss reduction and environmental impact. Journal of Food Engineering 331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2022.111120.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15),
1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020.
Silva, N., Pålsson, H., 2022. Industrial packaging and its impact on sustainability and
circular economy: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 333.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130165.
Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., vom Saal, F., Swan, S., 2009. Plastics, the environment and
human health: current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 364 (1526), 2153–2166. https://doi.org/
10.1098/rstb.2009.0053.
van Emmerik, T., Schwarz, A., 2020. Plastic debris in rivers. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews-Water 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1398.
Verghese, K., Lewis, H., 2007. Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a
supply chain approach. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18-19),
4381–4401. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701450211.
Villanueva, A., Wenzel, H., 2007. Paper waste - Recycling, incineration or landfilling? A
review of existing life cycle assessments. Waste Management 27 (8), S29–S46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.019.
Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). Research on the Application of Environmentally Friendly
Packaging Materials in the Sustainable Development of Logistics.
Zhu, Z., Liu, W., Ye, S., Batista, L., 2022. Packaging design for the circular economy: A
systematic review. Sustainable Production and Consumption 32, 817–832. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.005.