Skip to content

The Case for Plastic · Lifecycle Research

Why Plastic Belongs
in the Sustainability
Conversation

The environmental impact of plastic packaging is often discussed in terms of what happens after a package is used. But its full story begins earlier and extends further—from raw materials and production through transportation, use, recovery, and recycling.

recycling-plastic-sustainability

Lifecycle research looks at how much material a package requires, the emissions associated with producing and moving it, and what can happen when that material is recovered and used again.

Those comparisons show why sustainability is difficult to judge by material alone.

● Where a package’s impact starts ● Where the conversation usually focuses
  1. Raw Materials
    01 Raw Materials
  2. Energy & Production
    02 Energy & production
  3. Transportation
    03 Transportation
  4. Plastic Water Bottle
    04 Use
  5. Recovery
    05 Recovery
  6. Recycling
    06 Recycling ↶  Back to 01

These five numbers show why plastic deserves a place alongside other packaging options in the sustainability conversation.

10/12 single-use comparisons favored plastic over glass 50% lower greenhouse gas emissions than aluminum 92% less packaging weight than glass 16/19 packaging comparisons favored plastic 60% lower greenhouse gas emissions for recycled PET
Used plastic bottles gathered for recycling

01 / 05 · PLASTIC VS. GLASS

10 of 12

Lower impact for plastic (10) Comparable (2)

10 of 12 Single-Use Comparisons Favored Plastic Over Glass

A systematic review of 53 recent lifecycle studies found 12 that directly compared single-use plastic with single-use glass packaging. Ten reported lower environmental impacts for plastic, while the other two found the materials comparable.

When the studies looked at reusable glass, results depended heavily on how many times the container was reused and how far it traveled. The larger finding is that replacing plastic with another material does not guarantee a lower environmental impact.

Read the systematic review of packaging lifecycle studies

50% Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Aluminum

A 2023 U.S. lifecycle assessment compared the packaging required to deliver the same 1,000 gallons of carbonated soft drink. The PET system produced 623 kg of CO2 equivalent, compared with 1,241 kg for aluminum and 2,608 kg for glass. In this application, PET’s emissions were about 50% lower than aluminum and 76% lower than glass.

About the study · Conducted by Franklin Associates, a division of ERG, and independently peer reviewed. Funded by the National Association for PET Container Resources.
Read the 2023 beverage-container lifecycle assessment

02 / 05 · EMISSIONS

50%

kg CO2e to deliver 1,000 gallons of soft drink

PET623
 
Aluminum1,241
 
Glass2,608
 
Colorful plastic bottle caps

03 / 05 · PACKAGING WEIGHT

92%

kg of packaging to deliver 1,000 gallons of soft drink

PET194 kg
 
Glass2,402 kg
 

92% Less Packaging Weight Than Glass

The amount of packaging material required can vary dramatically depending on what’s being used. In the same beverage study, delivering 1,000 gallons of carbonated soft drink required about 194 kg of PET packaging, compared with 2,402 kg of glass packaging.

That is roughly 92% less packaging weight moving through the system. Lower weight can reduce the amount of material required to package a product while also affecting transportation and other lifecycle impacts.

See the full Franklin Associates report ↗

16 of 19 Packaging Comparisons Favored Plastic

A 2025 lifecycle study compared polyethylene packaging with paper, glass, aluminum, and steel alternatives across 19 U.S. packaging comparisons, including bottles, flexible pouches, shrink film, pallet wrap, and heavy-duty sacks.

Polyethylene had lower global warming potential, water scarcity, and mineral resource use in 16 of the 19 comparisons. It also required fewer fossil resources in 14 of the 19.

About the study · Conducted by authors from Trayak, ExxonMobil, and Michigan State University’s School of Packaging. ExxonMobil provided financial support, and several authors were ExxonMobil employees.
Read the 2025 peer-reviewed study on PubMed

04 / 05 · POLYETHYLENE VS. ALTERNATIVES

16 of 19

Lower GWP, water scarcity & mineral use: 16/19 Fewer fossil resources: 14/19
Hands holding colorful recycled plastic pieces

05 / 05 · RECYCLED PET

60%

Recycled PET production compared with virgin PET

Greenhouse gas emissions −60%
 
Fossil resource scarcity −85%
 

60% Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Recycled PET

Recycling can positively change plastic’s environmental impact. A 2023 peer-reviewed lifecycle study found that producing useful PET material from used bottles could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 60% compared with virgin PET. It also reported an 85% reduction in fossil resource scarcity.

Bottle-to-bottle recycling keeps recovered PET in a high-value packaging application and reduces the need for virgin resin.

About the study · The researchers reported no known competing financial interests.
Read the 2023 PET recycling study on PubMed ↗

Keep Up With What the Research Shows

Plastic sustainability continues to evolve. Subscribe for new articles on the research, technologies, policy, and initiatives shaping the conversation.