Metsä Board publishes verified carbon footprint Case Study comparing takeaway food trays
Metsä Board has released a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA)* comparing the carbon footprint of a takeaway food tray made from MetsäBoard Pro FSB Cup with that of a fossil-based polypropylene (PP) tray. The analysis, carried out in accordance with international standards and including both biogenic carbon sequestration and emissions, was independently verified by experts from RISE and SimaPro UK. Several end-of-life scenarios were assessed, ranging from regional recycling to full incineration.
Under the European end-of-life scenario**, the study demonstrated that the carbon footprint of a takeaway tray produced from MetsäBoard Pro FSB Cup was negative over the examined life cycle. In practice, this indicates that more carbon — expressed as CO₂ equivalents — was stored in the board’s fibres than was released throughout the first life cycle. By comparison, the carbon footprint of the PP tray totalled 0.112 kg CO₂e. When the end-of-life scenario assumed 100% incineration, the carbon footprint of the MetsäBoard Pro FSB Cup tray was 91% lower than that of its polypropylene counterpart.
Recycling rates also played a significant role. Paperboard packaging is recycled more widely in Europe than plastic packaging, effectively delaying carbon release from the material. According to the most recent Eurostat figures, 87% of paper and cardboard packaging was recycled in the EU in 2023, compared with 42% for plastic packaging.
Both plastic and paperboard contain carbon, which is released as carbon dioxide during incineration. The key distinction is that paperboard emissions are offset by the CO₂ absorbed during tree growth, whereas fossil-based plastics introduce additional carbon into the atmosphere.
“In addition to the biogenic carbon and high recycling rates, our paperboard benefits from the high share of fossil-free energy in production, which was 89% in 2024. Metsä Board’s target is to phase out the use of fossil energy in its mills by 2030,” says Lari Oksala, Sustainability Manager at Metsä Board. “The packaging material must always be tested and selected according to the intended application. The greatest climate benefit comes when packaging performs its core task – protecting the product.”
The study forms part of a broader programme of material comparisons that Metsä Board is carrying out to offer transparent, science-based understanding of the climate impacts associated with different packaging materials. “It is essential that we provide verified, science-based data to support our customers in making informed packaging choices. Such comparisons help the market move towards solutions that reduce climate impact,” says Marjo Halonen, VP Marketing, Communications and Sustainability.
* The study was conducted in line with ISO 14040, ISO 14044 and ISO 14067. The functional unit was defined as a takeaway food tray meeting required characteristics of stiffness, functionality and moisture resistance. The system boundary covered the full cradle-to-grave scope, using the IPCC 2021 Climate Change: Total (incl. biogenic CO₂) methodology. Climate impact data for competing materials was taken from Ecoinvent 3.10. The PE-coated paperboard tray weighed 18.9 g, including 0.65 g of PE; the PP tray weighed 27 g. The technical background report and third-party verification statement are available on Metsä Board’s website.
** Eurostat 2021. The recycling rate for paper and cardboard packaging was 82.5%, while plastic packaging reached 40.7%. For unrecycled materials, 56% were assumed to be incinerated and 46% landfilled based on municipal waste statistics.
