The Carbon Footprint of Plastics: A Cross-Sector Challenge

Plastics have been shaping the modern world for more than a century. Since their first use in 1860 and the industrial production boom in the early 20th century, their presence in our lives has steadily increased — it’s hard to imagine going a single day without them. In the past forty years, global plastic production has more than quadrupled, surpassing 400 million tonnes annually, and the numbers continue to rise sharply. By 2050, this figure is expected to double. To put it into perspective: each year, we could build a city the size of New York out of all the plastic produced — and still have enough left over for Prague.

It’s no wonder plastics are everywhere, both in everyday life and in business operations. They appear as components in finished products, as packaging, and as waste generated during production or consumption. In industrial manufacturing, plastic parts are often essential components. Packaging materials protect products in transit, ensure hygiene and help build brand identity. And in the end, plastics become waste — whether as leftover material in production or post-consumer waste.

This omnipresence makes it clear: no company can afford to ignore the carbon footprint of plastics. If you’re addressing sustainability, you’re also addressing plastics. At the same time, regulatory pressure in the EU is growing — from bans on single-use plastics to extended producer responsibility and mandatory reporting on packaging footprints. On a global level, a legally binding UN treaty on plastics is in the works, aiming to significantly reduce the production of virgin plastics and introduce stricter requirements for product design to improve recyclability. Meanwhile, customer expectations are also shifting. Plastic waste has become a highly visible and widely understood issue for the public, putting companies under pressure from both above and below.

Types of Plastics and Their Environmental Impacts

To manage plastic-related emissions effectively and responsibly, it is essential to understand the different types of plastics and their specific characteristics. Not all plastics are the same, and they do not share identical properties when it comes to processing or environmental impact. The basic classification distinguishes between thermoplastics and thermosets. Thermoplastics can be repeatedly melted and reshaped without losing their properties, making them more suitable for recycling. Thermosets, on the other hand, cannot be remolded once cured, and their recyclability is very limited or nonexistent. Most packaging and consumer plastics fall under thermoplastics, and these are the main focus of efforts to reduce environmental impacts.

Different types of plastics vary in their physical properties, applications, carbon intensity, and recyclability. For example, polyethylene (PE) is used in plastic bags, films, and flexible packaging. It is lightweight and inexpensive but difficult to recycle, especially in thin forms. Polypropylene (PP), found in rigid packaging, caps, or kitchenware, is considered relatively well recyclable and has a lower carbon footprint. Polystyrene (PS) is commonly used in disposable tableware, thermal insulation, and packaging. It is brittle and cheap but economically challenging to recycle. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), widely used in beverage bottles and clear food packaging, is seen as one of the more environmentally favorable plastics due to well-established recycling systems — particularly when collected and processed properly.

The fact that nothing is black and white becomes clear in the case of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). PVC is primarily used in the construction industry — for pipes, window frames, or cable insulation. While PVC has a relatively low carbon footprint due to its composition and long lifespan, its environmental impacts go far beyond greenhouse gas emissions. The presence of toxic additives, the formation of hazardous substances during combustion or degradation, and its challenging recyclability make PVC one of the most controversial plastics in terms of its full life cycle. Companies evaluating material choices should therefore consider not only carbon efficiency but also health and environmental risks, and prepare for potential regulatory changes.

Calculating the Carbon Footprint of Plastics: Why Companies Can’t Do Without It

To move from general commitments to real impact in the area of plastics, accurate measurement is essential. Calculating the carbon footprint of plastics allows companies not only to understand their environmental impact but also to strategically manage it, track it over time, and demonstrably reduce it. Under the GHG Protocol methodology, emissions related to plastics appear across all three scopes—and often even in places where we wouldn’t expect them at first glance.

A significant portion of emissions originates in Scope 3, i.e., the supply chain—for example, from the purchase of packaging materials, product components, or distribution processes. For manufacturing companies and retailers, plastics can represent a substantial share of their overall carbon footprint. But even in companies that don’t work directly with plastics—such as service providers, event organizers, or businesses in the digital economy—they can be a surprisingly significant source of emissions. Typical examples include promotional items, product packaging, marketing materials, or electronics.

Options for Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Plastics

As is often the case when it comes to reducing carbon footprints, there’s rarely a simple solution. The same applies to plastics—their carbon footprint is a complex issue that requires a comprehensive approach. From selecting specific types of plastic, through strategic product design and manufacturing, to the product’s end-of-life phase.

One key measure remains ensuring recyclability, which is significantly influenced by the diversity of plastics used. Mixing different types of plastic—or combining plastic with other materials, such as in multilayer packaging that includes aluminum or paper—greatly complicates sorting and waste processing. These composites, commonly found in cookie or coffee packaging, often end up in landfills or incinerators, even if they are technically recyclable. Using a single type of plastic throughout the packaging can be a simple but effective step to reduce both carbon and material footprints.

The next step is the use of recycled content. Replacing virgin plastic with recyclate, such as rPET, significantly lowers emissions by eliminating the need for fossil resource extraction and energy-intensive production of new polymers. In some cases, switching to recyclate can reduce the carbon footprint of packaging by 30–50%. However, the final impact depends on the type of recycling, logistics, and the quality of material required. Not all rPET has the same environmental profile. Nevertheless, this is one of the most effective measures companies can currently adopt in plastic packaging.

Still, while recycling and the use of recyclates are an essential first step, they are no silver bullet. Only a small percentage of plastics are truly recyclable in a closed loop—that is, after recycling, they can become products of the same quality as the original. Most plastics cannot be recycled infinitely, and their quality degrades with each cycle. More often, we see “downcycling,” where plastic is repurposed into lower-value or less durable items—such as turning PET bottles into carpet fibers or jacket stuffing. These products are usually not recycled further and end up in landfills or incinerators. While downcycling extends the material’s life temporarily, it doesn’t solve the core issue: the growing volume of plastic waste.

Another proposed “solution” is to emphasize the use of so-called bioplastics. This term covers a broad—and sometimes confusing—range of materials, which can be categorized by two criteria: the origin of the raw materials and the end-of-life behavior. Some bioplastics are bio-based, meaning they are entirely or partially made from renewable biological sources like corn starch, sugarcane, or cellulose. Others are biodegradable, meaning they can break down under certain conditions into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass. However, not all bio-based plastics are biodegradable, and vice versa. That’s why if you're considering switching to bioplastics, it's crucial not to be short-sighted and to carefully select the right type with a clear end-of-life strategy.

Reducing the weight of plastic products is another effective strategy. Thin-walled packaging and optimized components lead to lower material use and, in turn, lower emissions during both production and transport. However, there are limits to how thin plastic can be—very thin plastics (like single-use bags or films) may be difficult to recycle and may lose their functionality. They often get stuck in sorting lines, contaminate other materials, or aren’t economically viable for further processing. That’s why optimizing the amount of plastic must go hand in hand with good product design—one that considers the entire life cycle, from efficient material use to ease of recyclability.

Closely linked to this is the concept of design for recycling, which is becoming increasingly important. Companies that aim to reduce the carbon footprint of plastics systematically and over the long term need to think about how their products and packaging will function in real recycling systems. That includes what materials are used, how many different materials are combined, and whether they can be easily separated or reused. A useful guide when designing for recycling is the RecyClass platform. This brings us back to the key idea: it’s not just about using “less plastic,” but about using better plastic—simpler, cleaner, and ready for reuse.

Plastics are—and will likely remain—a solid part of modern society for a long time. That’s why we need to pay attention to their environmental impact. The solution lies in a combination of better design, more efficient recycling, and a responsible approach from all stakeholders—manufacturers, consumers, and regulators. Only then can we minimize the carbon footprint of plastics and move toward more sustainable use of these materials.

Sources used:

• Design for Recycling Guidelines. (n.d.). RecyClass. Retrieved July 31, 2025, from https://recyclass.eu/recyclability/design-for-recycling-guidelines/
• Directive—2019/904—EN - SUP Directive—EUR-Lex. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj/eng
• Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
• Gironi, F., & Piemonte, V. (2011). Bioplastics and Petroleum-based Plastics: Strengths and Weaknesses. Energy Sources, Part A, 33(21), 1949–1959. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567030903436830
• Pilapitiya, P. G. C. N. T., & Ratnayake, A. S. (2024). The world of plastic waste: A review. Cleaner Materials, 11, 100220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2024.100220
• Regulation—EU - 2025/40—EN - EUR-Lex. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj/eng
• UN Plastics Treaty | Global Plastic Laws. (2023, June 22). https://www.globalplasticlaws.org/un-global-plastics-treaty