A new report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation suggests paper-based flexible packaging could help tackle plastic pollution in high-leakage markets. But it also warns that without responsible design, sourcing and system support, switching materials may deliver little real benefits.
Material substitution has become one of the packaging industry’s most debated pathways to reducing environmental impact. As scrutiny of plastics intensifies, paper is increasingly positioned as a potential alternative – particularly for small-format flexible packaging.
But a report released today by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation urges caution. While paper-based flexibles may play a role in addressing plastic pollution, the foundation argues they must be developed within clear sustainability guardrails if they are to deliver genuine environmental benefit.
The report, Paper-Based Flexible Packaging – The role it could play in tackling small-format flexible plastic pollution in markets with high leakage rates, focuses on one of the most persistent challenges in packaging: small-format flexible plastics such as sachets, wrappers and pouches.
Flexible plastics are the fastest-growing type of plastic packaging globally. In countries with low collection and recycling rates, they can account for up to 80 per cent of the plastic packaging that enters the ocean.
These formats are widely used because they are lightweight, efficient and low-cost. Yet they are also notoriously difficult to collect and recycle. In markets where formal waste management systems are limited, they can become a significant source of environmental leakage.
Importantly, the report’s scope is tightly defined. It focuses specifically on markets with high leakage rates, where flexible plastics are rarely collected and often end up polluting the environment. These are typically lower-middle to upper-middle income economies – including parts of Asia – where demand for small-format packaging is rising rapidly.
In these contexts, informal waste pickers play a critical role in recovery systems. However, the low value of small-format packaging means these items are often not collected, allowing them to escape into the environment.
The report therefore concentrates on small-format flexible packaging sized A5 or smaller – including sachets, wrappers, pouches and small pillow bags – commonly used for everyday consumer goods such as snacks, confectionery, shampoo, cooking oil, coffee and milk.
Markets with well-developed collection systems and lower leakage rates are not part of the report’s scope. The foundation notes that any shift to alternative materials in these markets should be assessed separately and subjected to the same rigorous sustainability standards.
Against this backdrop, paper-based flexible packaging is gaining attention as a possible alternative.
Paper formats can potentially be designed to be both recyclable and biodegradable. In markets where packaging is likely to escape collection systems, this could help reduce persistent plastic pollution while still enabling recycling if infrastructure improves.
However, the report makes clear that paper is not automatically the more sustainable option.
Without careful design and responsible sourcing, paper-based packaging may offer little or no environmental benefit – and in some cases could create new pressures on forests, water resources and climate.
To avoid replacing one problem with another, the report sets out six criteria that should guide the development of paper-based flexible packaging.
Fibre must be sourced responsibly to avoid contributing to forest degradation. Manufacturing processes should minimise impacts on climate and water resources. Packaging must meet real-world technical and economic requirements, ensuring it protects the product and remains viable for brands and consumers.
End-of-life considerations are equally important. Paper-based flexibles must be recyclable within local systems and supported by improved collection infrastructure. They should also avoid hazardous chemicals and persistent plastic components that undermine recyclability.
Finally, the report stresses that paper alternatives should form part of a broader circular economy strategy that prioritises reducing unnecessary packaging and expanding reuse models wherever possible.
The report has been endorsed by 44 organisations across business, academia and civil society, reflecting growing interest in developing next-generation fibre-based flexible packaging solutions.
Even so, the foundation acknowledges that paper-based flexible solutions are still at an early stage, with current technologies yet to reach the scale, cost or performance needed to replace plastic flexibles widely.
For the packaging industry, the report reinforces a familiar lesson: there is no single material solution to plastic pollution. Paper-based flexibles may help address leakage from small-format packaging in high-risk markets, but their impact will depend on responsible design, sourcing and integration with effective waste systems. Without that discipline, switching materials risks shifting the environmental burden rather than reducing it.
