Plastic Isn't The Enemy

Plastic has become environmental enemy number one - blamed for ocean waste, microplastics, and ecosystem damage. But when you examine full lifecycle data, plastic often delivers lower environmental impact than the alternatives we're told to prefer.

The real problem isn't the material. It's what happens after we're done with it.

What the Evidence Shows

Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) consistently reveal that replacing plastic often increases emissions rather than reducing them. A 2024 study by Meng et al. confirmed this across 15 of 16 product categories, showing that plastics generate fewer greenhouse gases than glass, aluminium, or paper when all production and transport stages are counted.

This creates a conflict between perception and data. While images of single-use packaging polluting oceans have rightfully driven calls for change, they have also led to a blanket demonisation of the material. This ignores the distinction between disposable waste and durable goods, often pushing designers toward alternatives that feel "greener" but carry a heavier invisible carbon cost.

Assessing the Alternatives

We choose materials based on measurable full-lifecycle impact, not just reputation. You have likely heard that metals are infinitely recyclable, glass is natural, or bioplastics are the future. While these claims have truth, they are often based on only one part of the story.

The responsible method is to assess every material from extraction to end-of-life. This holistic view often reveals where "green" options fall short - whether it is the extreme heat required to melt glass, the heavy fuel cost of transporting aluminium, or the disposal issues with compostable plastics. The table below summarises these trade-offs.

Common Materials Summary

This comparison highlights why plastics often outperform in LCA studies: their low mass, low processing emissions, and established recycling systems give them a distinct advantage over heavier, more energy-intensive alternatives

Aluminium and Plastics: A Closer Comparison

Primary aluminium production is three to four times more carbon-intensive than most plastics. Weight widens this gap further—a nylon part often achieves the same function with roughly half the mass, giving it a significantly lighter initial footprint.

Circularity, however, complicates the picture. Aluminium can eventually offset this initial carbon debt after several recycling loops because it can be remelted without degradation. Plastics generally lose performance with each cycle, often requiring virgin material top-ups to maintain quality.

For durable goods, longevity matters most. Products designed to last longer reduce environmental load regardless of material.

How We Apply This Evidence

We take a science-based approach to material selection, prioritizing lifecycle data over perception. Plastics can be the responsible choice when full environmental cost is considered, particularly in long-life products where durability and repairability stretch impact across many years.

With better end-of-life stewardship, plastics are an environmentally responsible option for durable goods. 

Learn more: The Brevn Durability Code

Sources

Scientific reviews show common perceptions of packaging sustainability frequently diverge from life-cycle analysis results, with conventional plastics often performing better environmentally than their alternatives in key impact categories. Dolci et al., 2024

Recent large-scale analysis demonstrates replacing plastics with alternatives typically results in higher greenhouse gas emissions across most product categories. Meng et al., 2024

Recent peer-reviewed research found that the most significant barriers to corporate sustainability in U.S. companies are lack of leadership and governance—not resources or technology. McGrady & Golicic, 2023