Paper or Plastic?

We Fixed It, You're Welcome

The episode explores the complex environmental trade-offs between paper and plastic packaging materials. Through a discussion with expert Christine

Key takeaways

Paper production can sometimes require more water, energy, and material than plastic depending on specific environmental conditions.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation shifts the financial burden of packaging end-of-life management from governments to brands.

Main topics

Paper vs Plastic trade-offs
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Notable quotes

The reality is it depends, which is like the typical consulting answer.

Conclusion

Sustainability in packaging cannot be achieved through binary material

Transcript preview

Speaker 4 (0:00) Welcome to We Fixed It. You're welcome. The show where we take over companies, you come along for the ride, and Speaker 2 (0:07) we try to put them back better than we found them. Speaker 4 (0:12) Paper or plastic? That feels like one of those environmental debates we settled a long time ago. Paper comes from trees, breaks down, and feels natural. Plastic comes from fossil fuels and represents pollution. So if we're trying to make the environmentally responsible choice, paper seems like the obvious answer. Except, the closer you look, the less obvious it gets. Depending on conditions, paper can require more material, water, and energy to produce than plastic. Plastic actually does better in some life cycle assessments, but there's also recycling, microplastics, and environmental impact. Experts might think one thing, consumers might think another way. This is getting complicated. Is paper better? Is plastic? There are alternatives to both, but are any of those really the solution? That's what we're here to fix. Fortunately, we've got some serious help. Joining Chino, Melissa, and me today is Christine Yeager. founder of CSY Impact Consulting. Christine spent more than 11 years at Coca-Cola, eventually leading its North American Sustainability Project Management Office. Recently, she worked with Circular Action Alliance to move EPR programs from policy to implementation. Christine, welcome to our show and tell us a little bit more about what you're doing today. Speaker 1 (1:19) Great. Thank you for having me. I think this is going to be fun. It's a conversation I have with strangers all the time, actually. Speaker 1 (1:28) I, since leaving Circular Action Alliance, have been helping producers and or service providers navigate EPR. And if you don't know what that is, it's extended producer responsibility, which is a legislation that moves the funding mechanism of managing the end of life of your packaging. In this case, it can also exist for other things, but we're going to talk about packaging. Away from municipalities and governments and on to... basically the brands that make and sell the package. So things around a product in a store. The reality is EPR fees are really the first time anyone's put like a price tag on a packaging decision beyond, you know, just the value of the commodity. So it's really forcing and incentivizing these decisions around paper versus plastic. Speaker 4 (2:16) Thanks, Christine. We're so glad you're here. So paper or plastic, don't answer it yet. Let's look into some actual examples first. So Amazon replaced nearly 15 billion plastic air pillows a year with paper and later reported a meaningful drop in its overall plastic packaging. Apple made a huge public commitment to eliminate plastic from its packaging and actually hit the goal. Those sound like sustainability success stories. Make a big commitment, change the material, reduce the plastic, everybody wins. But then there's McDonald's. It replaced roughly 1.8 million plastic straws a day in the UK with paper straws. Customers complained because the new straws got soggy, so McDonald's made them stronger. Then they became too difficult for its waste processors to recycle. And Coca-Cola set a major goal to get 25 % of its beverage volume into reusable packaging by 2030, stayed at 14 % for three straight years, and eventually replaced that target with a new set of environmental goals. So even when companies are genuinely trying to do the right thing, one environmental win can create another problem. The package can look greener, but perform worse. It can be recyclable, but never actually make it to the point of recycling. It can reduce plastic, but use more resources elsewhere. And sometimes a great sustainability promise just can't be carried out. The motivations are there, but it's just not realistic. So given all that, paper, plastic, third party, how are companies expected to make the right choice here? You want to start us off, Christine? Speaker 1 (3:42) Sure. The reality is it depends, which is like the typical consulting answer. But paper versus plastic. You shared McDonald's. They also... are part of a cup consortium that's led by closed-loop partners where they're looking at should the cup be paper or plastic. And the reality is if a paper cup, which has a plastic lining, can become recyclable, then that might be a good choice. Or if a polypropylene cup can be widely accepted recyclable. then maybe that becomes the right choice, right? And then you look at LCAs, as you said, I mean, within the paper industry, an LCA can change the answer very quickly. So an LCA of paper is going to be focused on maybe how much energy it takes to process the material and then dry it. Now, if that processing is happening using the biomass that is part of the paper mill's process, using its own waste to then generate the energy, the carbon footprint of that is going to be very different than somebody who's using energy from a grid that might be powered by coal. On the flip side, paper might be four times the weight of a plastic cup, and then therefore you now have to be four times as efficient. as a plastic cup. I wonder if companies Speaker 2 (5:07) are comparing the full life cycle or simply choosing the material with the better headline that's going to make them look like they're engaging in the initiative around sustainability. And, you know, so like that McDonald's example is a perfect example of that. I think even Starbucks is saying that, right, they got rid of the straws and they. but they got plastic lids. So like, is that really better? Paper can reduce reliance on those fossil-based plastics, but then like the customer experience they found out in the UK was not so great. And so then they try to adjust that, but then they kind of, if you go down the life cycle of the product, you'll see that it's actually made it a lot worse. So maybe not a lot worse, but it made it worse and it didn't, you know. ultimately deliver the results and outcomes that they were hoping for. So when you're talking to different clients and you're, you know, Christine, as an expert, are you trying to get them to think about that entire life cycle before they make choices? Or are you finding that, you know, they've already made their decision and they're bringing you in just to help them deliver and get it done and get, you know, the appropriate sign off and things like that? So Speaker 1 (6:21) they're not coming to me with an answer already. But you look at like Colorado paper is certified compostable paper is 32 cents a pound versus like a PET bottle, which can be like between 8 to 12 to 15 cents per pound. Either way, it's like half the price of the cost of certified viable compostable paper. So in that instance, and in Oregon, PET is even less. So in that instance, it's. It's incentivizing an already recyclable material, not necessarily something with a lower carbon footprint. But on the flip side, Oregon has eco-modulation, which means they have this way of like continuing to incentivize better design choices. But those better design choices are focused on an LCA. It's kind of inherently competing with itself because you have to make the design choice and it has to reduce the carbon footprint. But most people aren't participating because the cost of the LCA is higher than the benefit you could receive. So is that even incentivizing the right thing? I don't know. Speaker 4 (7:31) Well, consumers can be fickle and hard to please. You know, you can get mad at a company for using plastic straws and then it gets replaced with paper straws. And you say, I don't like these. Bring back the plastic ones. And if they're bioengineered and they're corn-based or something, then you feel great about it again. And if you buy something that has soy ink, I'm guessing that's good in some way and you feel great about that. But if it costs three times more, you don't feel good and you start to push back and you say, your prices are too high. And now you've reduced the amount of product I get in my packaging because you've incurred other supply chain costs by being more environmentally impactful. you know, consumers are a tough crowd to please. Speaker 3 (8:12) Yeah. So I also want to just touch on like the locality of everything, because you're talking about different states as well. And, you know, 50 states, all a little bit different. I'm in Canada, you know, the Canadian here and in Ontario, it wasn't until this year, January 1st of 2026, we're... Our recyclable processors were able to actually take the plastic lined paper to be recycled. Otherwise, you had these companies that were creating these recyclable goods to be more green, but our plants, our city plants could not take them. So you actually had to throw them out. And I remember that. I remember being in a condo and I was just like, literally, I've watched them put all of the recycling. into the garbage because they couldn't process that. And so I want to touch on that, too, because you're right, Erin. Customers are fickle. I love the turtles. I'm trying not to use plastic straws. I have my own little, you know, metal straw. Realistically, though, can I bring that everywhere? No, I'm aware of that. Right. But. How do we get companies like McDonald's who are saying, OK, you know, you have a global production. You're trying to standardize things to kind of cut the cost and make things somewhat equal. But Ontario's recycling plants up until this year couldn't do this. But, you know, in California, they can. Or, you know, somewhere like Costa Rica, if anyone's ever been, the way they compost and recycle like that is the gold standard. And they have the. the tools and the processes and the government behind that. So, Christine, this is such a hard, this is a hard job. And I'm glad people employ you to do this because how do you get the big conglomerates of the world to localize so that it makes sense? It's still compostable, but also it's reducing carbon footprint. Speaker 4 (10:09) Here's something I've done for work that I'll never volunteer for again, writing a step-by-step process document. It's tedious, it's time-consuming, and after all that effort, it just kind of sits there. Which is why I really like what today's sponsor, Scribe, has built for companies. Scribe is a workflow AI platform trusted by 94 % of the Fortune 500, and I've had a chance to see it in action. Instead of stopping what you're doing to document a process, Scribe captures the process as you work, including clicks, steps, and screenshots, and automatically turns it into a clear, step-by-step guide that's ready to review and share. Scribe's AI can even look at that workflow and suggest where steps can be simplified or automated. And with the Guide Me feature, anyone you choose can follow that same process with real-time on-screen instructions showing them exactly where to click. And don't worry, it can automatically redact sensitive information like names, emails, and account numbers so you can share with confidence. Look, don't just document your process. Why not find ways to make it better? To see what Scribe could look like for your organization, head to scribe.how slash fixedit and mention We Fixed It for your first month of Scribe capture free on select plans. That's S-C-R-I-B-E dot how slash F-I-X-E-D-I-T. Today's episode is brought to you by Whatnot. I recently started shopping on Whatnot and I'm telling you, it's fun. Even though I ordered from different sellers, everything shipped really fast.