Something worth sharing with this community, especially if you're working with brands on sustainability claims or packaging decisions.
Compostable packaging is often worse than plastic.
Untouched World (NZ fashion brand, B Corp) just documented a 3-year research process they ran with Callaghan Innovation ,full Life Cycle Assessments across plastics, paper, compostables, and novel materials.
The uncomfortable finding: plastic won on emissions. Compostable failed because the processing infrastructure doesn't exist at scale, PLA and synthetics end up in landfill anyway.
Their solution: switch to POLLAST!C by Better Packaging Co, 100% ocean-bound plastic rescued from SE Asian coastal communities. Independently verified as the lowest carbon packaging commercially available. Lower than paper. Lower than compostable. Resealable and returned through a store programme for reuse.
Why I'm sharing this here: this is exactly the kind of contested, evidence-based sustainability decision that's hard to make and even harder to communicate publicly. They did it right! Three years of research, external verification, B Corp accountability, and a transparent blog post explaining the whole reasoning.
For anyone advising brands on sustainability messaging, this is a great case study in how to move from aspirational claims to operational proof.