For years, packaging decision makers have heard a simple message: reusable plastic containers are better for the environment than single-use alternatives. It's an appealing narrative that aligns with growing demands for sustainable packaging. But when subjected to rigorous analysis, the reality proves far more complex.
A comprehensive new life cycle assessment (LCA) comparing corrugated containers to reusable plastic containers (RPCs) reveals findings that challenge this conventional wisdom and have significant implications for packaging professionals across multiple industries.
What the study shows
The 2025 comparative LCA, commissioned by the Corrugated Packaging Alliance and conducted by Anthesis Group, examined packaging systems across complete life cycles, from raw material extraction through end-of-life (Anthesis Group, 2025). This ISO-compliant study, verified by an independent critical review panel, meets ISO 14040 standards for comparative environmental claims.
The central finding upends simplistic assumptions: neither corrugated containers nor RPCs can claim to be the clear environmental winner. Instead, rigorous analysis reveals significant trade-offs between the two systems across eight environmental impact categories.
The performance picture: More complex than expected
The results challenge the narrative that reusability automatically equals sustainability. Reusable plastic containers create higher environmental impacts in four of the eight categories assessed, including metrics most important to corporate sustainability goals (Anthesis Group, 2025).
Corrugated containers show substantially lower impacts for global warming and carbon footprint (69% lower), eutrophication (the nutrient pollution of waterways, 69% lower), non-renewable energy use (110% lower, effectively cutting the impact by more than half), and respiratory effects (57% lower). These advantages align directly with top retailer sustainability priorities identified in 2023 Deloitte research: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, using sustainable materials, and minimizing energy consumption.
Reusable plastic containers perform better in three categories: acidification (36% lower), ozone depletion (24% lower), and water consumption (38% lower). For smog formation, the difference is negligible at less than 10 percent. Corrugated's advantages appear in the environmental indicators that typically dominate sustainability discussions and corporate commitments.
Why reusables don't deliver expected environmental benefits
The assumption that reusable automatically means more sustainable overlooks critical operational realities. Container weight drives both environmental impact and business costs. RPCs can weigh up to four times more than corrugated containers, creating significant implications throughout the supply chain.
Reusable plastic containers require extensive supporting infrastructure. Containers must be transported back to centralized cleaning facilities, washed using water and energy, then shipped back to points of origin, often covering significant distances multiple times. The heavier weight of RPCs compounds transportation emissions across these trips.
In contrast, lighter corrugated containers reduce freight costs and transportation emissions. Local sourcing enables shorter supply chains, and the reduced weight allows more products per truckload, improving logistics efficiency.
What this means for your packaging decisions
These findings have direct implications for packaging professionals making strategic decisions. Environmental performance depends on your specific supply chain configuration, geographic footprint, and which environmental impacts matter most to your stakeholders.
Companies with carbon reduction commitments should pay particular attention to the findings on global warming impact. Those prioritizing energy efficiency will find corrugated's 110 percent advantage in non-renewable energy use compelling. The weight differential also affects operational costs, making corrugated attractive from both sustainability and business perspectives.
Organizations focused on water conservation may find RPCs align better with their goals, but they need to understand the trade-offs in carbon and energy performance, as well as the business cost implications of heavier containers and complex reverse logistics.
Consumer preferences also factor into packaging decisions. A 2025 McKinsey survey found recyclability as consumers' foremost sustainable packaging concern (McKinsey & Company, 2025). This makes corrugated's proven recyclability a competitive differentiator. With a recycling rate of 69-74 percent in 2024 (American Forest & Paper Association), the industry has established infrastructure and consumer familiarity that supports circular economy goals.
Moving beyond simplistic sustainability claims
The study reinforces an important principle: beware of absolute claims that any packaging type is universally "better" for the environment. Marketing messages promoting reusable containers as the obvious sustainable choice ignore the evidence of meaningful trade-offs between systems.
Both systems offer opportunities for environmental improvement. Corrugated manufacturers continue advancing lightweighting technologies while benefiting from established recovery infrastructure. RPC operators can optimize reuse cycles, incorporate recycled content, minimize transportation distances, and reduce breakage rates.
Corrugated's strong performance in categories like global warming, energy use, and eutrophication reflects both the renewable, recyclable nature of the material and the efficiency of established recovery systems. In sustainability, complexity is reality. Better decisions come from embracing that complexity with rigorous data rather than accepting oversimplified narratives
