Beyond the Myths: A Holistic View on Plastics and the Future of Packaging
Public discourse often frames plastics as the central villain in the sustainability narrative. But when you examine the data more closely, a more balanced and constructive story emerges, one that Junish believes is essential to shaping the future of packaging, particularly in flexible formats.
Zooming Out: The Bigger Picture on Plastics
Plastics are frequently targeted in sustainability debates, yet broader studies show:
- Plastics account for less than 1% of global material consumption (UNEP, 2024)
This figure refers to plastics’ share of total global material extraction (including construction aggregates, mining, etc.), and not municipal or consumer waste, where plastics are a significantly larger share. - They make up under 1% of total global waste, well behind food, construction, and paper (US Office of Technology Assessment; Discard Studies, 2023; DeArmitt, 2020)
However, plastics comprise approximately 10–12% of global municipal solid waste, according to World Bank data (2018), and a greater share by volume due to their low density.*** - Only 4–5% of global crude oil is used to produce plastics (Trucost, 2016; The Plastic Paradox, 2020)
These facts don’t excuse poor plastic management. However, they do call for a system-level rethink. This automatically shifts the focus from blaming materials to improving how we design, use, and recover them.
Why Plastics Persist — With Good Reason
Despite regulatory pressure, plastics, especially in flexible packaging, remain widely used. The table below illustrates why:
| Attribute | Flexible Plastics | Glass | Aluminium |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO₂ Emissions | Low | High | High |
| Energy Use | Low | Moderate | High |
| Water Use | Low | Moderate | High |
| Weight | Light | Heavy | Moderate |
| Breakage Risk | Low | High | Low |
| Scalability | High | Low | Low |
| Recyclability | Variable (improving with mono-materials) | Generally good | High |
| Barrier Performance | Excellent | Strong | Moderate |
Studies by Denkstatt (2011), the Flexible Packaging Association (2020), and Chris DeArmitt (The Plastic Paradox, 2020) all conclude: replacing plastics often increases emissions and resource use — especially in food, pharma, and logistics.
Microplastics: A Real Concern, But Not the Whole Story
Microplastics deserve attention, but this requires context:
- Degradation can occur in 1–5 years in some conditions, not centuries (Gewert et al., 2015)
This applies to certain plastics, such as polyethylene, when exposed to high levels of UV radiation and oxygen. However, most conventional plastics degrade very slowly and may persist for decades or longer in real-world environments like landfills or the ocean.
The key is improving end-of-life management, not demonizing the material.
What Really Matters: System Design and Recovery
Plastics perform poorly when:
- Design is flawed (e.g., complex, multilayer formats)
- Infrastructure is weak (e.g., poor segregation or collection)
- Behavioral systems fail (e.g., littering or contamination)
Ironically, some so-called “green” alternatives, like paper-aluminum laminates, are less recyclable and more carbon-intensive than flexible plastics.
(Flexible Packaging Association, 2020)
Flexible Plastics: A Strong Path Forward
At Junish, we endorse the view:
“The issue isn’t plastics. It’s how we use them, and whether we design for recovery and value extraction.”
— Chris DeArmitt, The Plastic Paradox (2020)
When designed for circularity and supported by appropriate systems, Flexible plastics offer the best balance of protection, efficiency, and sustainability.
In Europe, that might mean digitally traceable EPR schemes. In India or Brazil, it may involve integrating the informal sector and creating decentralized recycling models.
The Junish Perspective: A System-Wide Approach
Material bans aren’t necessarily the best solution, nor are one-size-fits-all answers. We believe in contextual, science-backed, system-driven solutions. Our focus includes:
- Recyclable mono-material laminates
- Functional coatings to replace multi-layer barriers
- Guidance on EPR, regulatory compliance, and sorting tech
- R&D partnerships with recyclers, converters, and brands
We’re not here to defend plastic at all costs, but to improve what works, eliminate what doesn’t, and deliver responsible innovation at scale.
Sustainability Isn’t a Material, But a System
Plastics, when designed and recovered responsibly, aren’t the villain. They’re part of the solution. Especially in flexible packaging, they offer a clear path to lower emissions, better efficiency, and smarter design, across the product lifecycle.
Let’s move forward with science, not slogans. The future will be multi-solution, not unidimensional. And at Junish, we’re engineering that future every day.
Sources and Credits
• UNEP (2024). Turning off the Tap
• Trucost (2016). Plastics and Sustainability
• DeArmitt, C. (2020). The Plastic Paradox
• US OTA; Discard Studies (2023) ***This reference doesn’t have any data to suggest there have been any changes in this progression.
• Denkstatt (2011). LCA of Plastic Packaging in Europe
• Flexible Packaging Association (2020). Flexible vs Rigid Packaging
• Gewert et al. (2015). Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2018–2023)
• Schultz et al. (2011). Littering Behavior in America
• Basuhi et al. (2024). Circular Systems Research Group, Lund
