When paper packaging fails the sustainability test

The paper packaging transition: summary

• Brands pursue paperisation as consumers trust paper over plastic
• Paper packaging faces barrier challenges for wet oily foods
• Paper-based packaging is often made from composites, complicating recycling processes
• Costs rise initially and consumers resist paying more for packaging
• Success requires scale and collaboration with retailers, partners and waste managers

Transitioning from plastic to paper is a growing trend. It’s even got an industry term: “paperisation”.

One of the biggest brands making the switch is Bel Group’s Babybel. The iconic wheels of cheese traditionally wrapped in cellophane are now making the move over to paper.

In terms of consumer perception, it’s landing. “The switch was very positively received when we introduced it to the market,” says Clément Ernest, packaging research leader at Bel Group. “Paper is trusted by consumers and perceived as natural. That perception matters as much as the technical transition.”

But Bel Group’s success story can’t be replicated everywhere, and sometimes “paperisation” – sold as a more climate-friendly approach to food and drink packaging – just doesn’t hit the mark on environmental or financial sustainability.

For brands considering the move, these challenges must be front of mind. From cost pressures to real‑world recyclability, here are the situations where “paperisation” simply doesn’t stack up.

Performance challenges: sometimes plastic just works best

For food manufacturers, the pull to paper is clear: consumers want it, trust it, and know how to recycle it. But even when the switch proves successful, performance challenges need to be overcome.

Bel Group’s transition from plastic to paper hasn’t been easy. Paper packaging comes with “major trade-offs”, explains packaging researcher Ernest. “Cheese is wet and oily, so barrier performance is critical to maintain shelf life.”

The hope is that new packaging materials work with existing infrastructure – and that’s another consideration. In the case of Bel Group, the company uses “very specific” machinery to form and fill its Babybel portions. In the end, it’s not a simple material swap; the move affects every stage of the product lifecycle, from filling to end-of-life conditioning, he says.

Bel Group is making it work, and credit to them. The company has committed to using paper packaging for all of its Babybel products, made in five plants and distributed in 50 countries, by 2027.

But depending on the product, paper packaging won’t always be the right answer. “There is no single solution,” says Jamie Stone, partner at PA Consulting Group. “Before plastic, we had glass. Then polymers solved many problems. Now we need a portfolio approach.”

Molded fibre can be the right solution, sometimes lightweight glass works best, at other times it’s plastic that still makes most sense.

And from a recyclability perspective, dry products are going to work much better with paper packaging than wet or oily ones, which are known to contaminate paper streams, explains Roger Wright, water strategy and packaging manager at UK-based Biffa Waste Management. “There are correct and incorrect applications.”

The recyclability dilemma - paper is almost never just paper

Which segues us nicely into the end-of-life dilemma. While consumers understand how to recycle paper, paper packaging – particularly in the food world – is very rarely simply made from that one, single material. It would be better to use the term “paper-based packaging”, since often it’s a hybrid or composite.

In fact, “paperisation” very often means moving from a mono-material – whether that be plastic, glass or metal – to something more complicated. That paper-based packaging may need a barrier element made from plastic shouldn’t put manufacturers off. It’s just a technical reality, says PA Consulting Group’s Stone. “If you want liquid to stay inside paper for two years, you need some form of barrier, and that creates composite materials.”

But it’s undeniable that from a recycling perspective, composite materials create challenges.

When new materials come through Biffa Waste Management, the team wants to know everything it can about its shape, size and material. “If something is too small, too large, or not flat, it may not behave like paper through the sorting system,” explains Wright. Another consideration is material purity. If feedstock doesn’t meet mill specifications, it loses value.

Value and volume are the all-important terms here. There’s real opportunity in designing materials that have value in the recycling stream," according to PA Consulting Group’s Stone. “If there’s value, they’ll be recovered.”

And from a volume perspective, if enough of the same material appears in the system, a waste management company like Biffa can adapt. “With sufficient scale, it becomes viable to collect and process correctly.”

Consumers won’t pay more for paper packaging

For anything to be truly sustainable, it can’t disappear from shelves due to weak consumer uptake. It has to win shoppers over – and endure.

For brands, that means the paper-based solution has to be economically viable. Admittedly, when switching from a traditional plastic packaging to paper, economics are a “major challenge”, says Bel Group’s Ernest. “Paper-based solutions with high performance requirements often cost more initially. Brands must accept higher costs at the beginning and factor that into decision-making.”

Winning consumers over should be slightly easier. There’s strong data to suggest consumers prefer paper over plastic. But the question of price remains. “It’s very well proven that consumers won’t pay over the odds for packaging at scale,” says PA Consulting Group’s Stone.

That’s not true of everyone, and of course small, niche segments of people are willing to pay more. But for mass-market brands like Babybel, the challenge lies in matching the performance of a material with cost-effectiveness. “Sustainability alone will not justify a higher price point,” says Stone.

When it comes to what consumers do and don’t want, there’s another important factor at play. Shoppers want an enjoyable packaging experience – a “delighter” if you will. If when making the switch to paper, a product becomes less convenient or less enjoyable, it will be rejected by the market, no matter its environmental credentials, believes Bel Group’s Ernest. “Sustainability alone is not enough.”

No big brand can make the move solo

Ultimately, paperisation doesn’t work at small scale. When volumes are low, material costs remain high, consumers risk being asked to pay a premium, and waste management companies lack the incentive to adapt their systems.

Cost of goods only improves with volume. To get there, brands need support. “Commercial partners can offer margin relief during the early stages of the transition,” says PA Consulting Group’s Stone – helping ensure costs aren’t simply passed on to consumers.

But the burden shouldn’t sit with brands alone. Retailers also have a critical role to play. “They can put many SKUs on shelf and drive scale,” he stresses. “Too often, retailers wait for solutions to be perfect before engaging.”

Earlier collaboration between brands and retailers would have knock-on benefits at end of life too. With sufficient volume, waste management companies can make recycling systems work economically.

As Stone puts it: “No brand, however big, can move the dial alone.”