Pharmaceutical and personal care manufacturers face increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across their value chains, improve material efficiency, and strengthen supply chains against disruption. Packaging plays a role in all three areas. It must ensure product protection and regulatory compliance, while also influencing Scope 3 GHG emissions, logistics efficiency, and operational continuity.
When designed to meet application-specific functional requirements, fresh fiber-based secondary packaging can contribute through lightweighting, compatibility with established recycling systems, and material specifications that support resilient sourcing.
Scope 3 focus: why quantified carbon footprint data matters
Packaging materials are typically accounted for under Scope 3 GHG emissions. Credible emission reduction pathways depend on quantified and comparable carbon footprint data, based on transparent assumptions and clearly defined system boundaries. Key drivers of the carbon footprint of packaging include the weight of the packaging and the energy mix used in material production. Life cycle assessment (LCA) provides a structured, ISO-aligned methodology to calculate and compare the carbon footprint of packaging solutions, supporting informed material and design choices. Metsä Board has conducted a comparative life cycle assessment on the climate impact of different healthcare cartons. The studies were verified by the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. In one such assessment of a pain gel carton, fresh fiber-based folding boxboard alternatives were reported to have a carbon footprint more than 60% lower than a reference carton made of recycled-based white-lined chipboard representing a generic paperboard in the European market. The fresh fiber-based cartons were also 33–35% lighter while achieving comparable functional performance. The system boundary of the assessment covered cradle-to-gate with end-of-life stages. The technical background report and third-party verification statement are publicly available on the company’s website. These results do not indicate that one packaging material is universally superior. Rather, they demonstrate that a well-designed lightweight paperboard solution, produced using a high share of fossil-free energy and assessed using LCA methodology, can reduce packaging-related GHG emissions without compromising performance requirements. As a result of such benchmarking, decisions can move from general statements about “sustainable packaging” to measurable design parameters.
Material efficiency: lightweighting as a design task
Material efficiency is often one of the most direct levers for reducing the carbon footprint of secondary packaging. The objective is to reduce material use through lower grammage and optimized design while maintaining protection, print quality, and runnability on packing lines. In carton applications, lightweighting is primarily a design and engineering task, rather than a simple material substitution. It typically combines right-sizing, structural optimization for stiffness and protection, and qualification testing to ensure functional margins remain robust. When executed systematically, lightweighting can reduce fiber use and energy demand in material production, thereby lowering the carbon footprint of the packaging. Lower packaging weight can also influence logistics by reducing transport-related GHG emissions and improving handling efficiency, depending on palletization and distribution conditions. However, insufficient validation can increase damage rates or line disruptions, offsetting both emission reductions and operational benefits.
Circularity: designing for real recycling outcomes
Designing for circularity requires more than selecting a material that is recyclable in principle. Packaging must perform effectively in real-world collection, sorting, and recycling systems. In fiber-based packaging, practical design considerations include minimising unnecessary material combinations, avoiding features that interfere with recycling processes, and keeping material structures as simple as possible.
Supply chain resilience: standardization and regulatory readiness
Supply chain resilience has become a strategic requirement as manufacturers navigate volatility in raw material availability, logistics capacity, and regulatory frameworks. Packaging specifications that are robust, and compatible with local recycling systems can reduce operational risk during supplier changes or adjustments aimed at lowering Scope 3 GHG emissions. Regulatory developments that emphasize recyclability, material efficiency, and the minimization of unnecessary packaging increase the value of early design optimization, supported by documentation and testing. This approach can reduce requalification effort and rework as requirements evolve. Collaboration and technical support can further improve robustness. Digital design and simulation tools enable structural optimization and help avoid over-engineering. Verified carbon footprint comparisons support consistent decision-making across procurement, packaging engineering, quality, and sustainability functions. These practices are most effective when applied systematically, rather than as isolated projects.
Practical decision framework for technical teams
- Define functional and regulatory requirements first, including protection, consumer safety, line performance, and any application-specific needs.
- Use verified carbon footprint assessments where available to help make fact-based decisions.
- Prioritize material efficiency through packaging design, including right-sizing, simplification, and lightweighting.
- Design for real recycling outcomes by avoiding problematic material combinations and aligning with existing collection systems.
- Build cross-functional alignment with suppliers to support efficient qualification and implementation.
Conclusion
Fresh fiber-based packaging can support lower packaging-related greenhouse gas emissions, improved material efficiency, and stronger supply chain resilience when decisions are evidence-based and packaging designs are fit for purpose. The most reliable approach combines verified carbon footprint comparisons, transparent assumptions, and disciplined engineering to maintain protection and line performance while reducing material use and unnecessary complexity.
Tom Symons
Sales Director Pharma & Healthcare,
Metsä Board, Belgium, Sint-Niklaas,
www.metsagroup.com