How to Measure the Impact of Cannabis Packaging

Measuring packaging impact begins with a narrower question than whether a package is “sustainable.”

A package may contain recycled, reclaimed, plant-derived, or other documented materials without independently proving that it reduces carbon emissions, saves energy, diverts waste, prevents pollution, protects waterways, or performs better throughout its entire lifecycle.

Material content is an attribute. Environmental impact is an outcome.

Connecting the two requires a defined comparison, appropriate data, a documented calculation method, and language that accurately reflects what the evidence supports.

Before measuring or communicating the impact of cannabis packaging, identify:

• The exact package and components being evaluated
• The function the packaging must perform
• The alternative or baseline used for comparison
• The lifecycle stages included in the analysis
• The geographic area and time period
• The source and date of the data
• The assumptions used in any calculation
• The limitations of the available evidence

Without those details, an impact figure may appear precise while providing little useful information about the actual packaging system.

This article focuses on the measurement and substantiation process. For detailed material definitions, compositions, sourcing, supported claims, and end-of-life guidance, review Understanding Hemp Plastic Packaging and Understanding Reclaimed Ocean-Bound Plastic Packaging.

Begin With a Specific Question

The measurement method should follow the question being asked.

A cannabis brand may want to determine:

• How much packaging material it purchased during a defined period
• What percentage of an applicable component is documented recycled content
• What percentage of a component is plant-derived
• How the weight of two complete packaging configurations compares
• Whether a package helps address an applicable recycled-content requirement
• What documentation supports a customer-facing material claim
• Whether a modeled environmental comparison is available for two equivalent packaging systems
• Which data should be retained for internal reporting

These are different questions. They should not be combined into a single environmental-impact figure without an appropriate method.

For example, the documented weight of reclaimed plastic purchased does not independently establish the amount of plastic kept out of the ocean. The weight of plant-based material purchased does not establish how much hemp a customer caused to be grown. A difference in package weight does not, by itself, establish a carbon, energy, water, or total lifecycle benefit.

State the question first. Then identify the evidence required to answer it.

Define the Packaging System

A package should be evaluated as a complete system rather than as a material name.

Depending on the product, that system may include:

• Package body
• Closure
• Liner
• Seal
• Label
• Ink
• Adhesive
• Insert
• Inner baggie
• Tamper-evident component
• Paperboard packaging
• Other secondary components

Different components may use different materials, manufacturing processes, suppliers, and end-of-life pathways.

A claim supported for one molded component should not automatically be applied to the complete packaging system. Likewise, a comparison of two package bodies may not represent the difference between the finished retail configurations if their closures, liners, labels, or secondary components differ.

Document the exact product, SKU, components, quantities, and production configuration included in the evaluation.

Establish an Equivalent Functional Unit

A packaging comparison needs a consistent unit of measurement.

The functional unit describes the service being compared. Depending on the project, it might be:

• One complete package
• Packaging for 1,000 finished retail units
• Packaging required to contain a defined fill weight
• Packaging required to protect an equivalent product through the same distribution process
• Packaging used during a defined reporting period

The packages being compared should perform the same essential function.

A lighter package is not automatically preferable if it holds less product, requires additional secondary packaging, results in greater product loss, fails during transportation, or does not meet the same closure, child-resistance, tamper-evident, barrier, labeling, or market requirements.

Record the functional unit before comparing weights, material inputs, costs, or modeled environmental outcomes.

Separate Documented Attributes From Modeled Outcomes

Some packaging measurements can be calculated directly from product, supplier, purchasing, and production records.

Others depend on models, assumptions, comparison data, or lifecycle analysis.

These categories should remain separate.

A direct measurement may establish what a package contains or how much material was purchased. It does not automatically establish what happened because that package was used.

Measure Documented Packaging Attributes

Depending on the available records, directly documented attributes may include:

• Exact product and SKU
• Package and component dimensions
• Individual component weights
• Total package weight
• Resin or material type
• Documented recycled-content percentage
• Documented plant-derived content
• Ocean-bound sourcing classification
• Manufacturing location
• Units purchased or used
• Complete cases or pallets purchased
• Components included in the finished configuration
• Date and scope of the supporting documentation

These attributes can support straightforward calculations.

For example, a company may multiply the documented weight of a component by the number of units purchased to calculate the total weight of that component represented by an order. When a current recycled-content percentage applies to that exact component, the company may use the documented percentage to calculate the corresponding weight of recycled material.

The calculation should identify:

• The exact component being measured
• The documented unit weight
• The number of units included
• The supported material percentage
• Whether overages, damaged units, samples, or unused inventory are included
• The date of the applicable records
• Any rounding or conversion assumptions

The result describes material represented by the defined order or reporting period.

It should not be relabeled as:

• Plastic removed from the ocean
• Plastic prevented from entering the ocean
• Waste diverted from a landfill
• Virgin plastic production prevented
• Carbon emissions avoided
• Energy saved
• Pollution prevented
• Total environmental impact

Those conclusions require additional evidence.

Distinguish Purchasing Data From Environmental Results

Purchasing records can document the packaging a company ordered. They do not necessarily document how every unit was used or what happened after use.

A purchase quantity may include:

• Units remaining in inventory
• Production overage
• Damaged or rejected units
• Samples
• Packaging used for testing
• Packaging that was filled but not sold
• Packaging distributed into different markets
• Packaging discarded through different waste-management systems

If the measurement is based on purchasing data, describe it accordingly.

Appropriate language may include:

• Units purchased during the reporting period
• Documented package weight represented by the order
• Documented weight of reclaimed content purchased
• Documented weight of plant-based material purchased
• Packaging distributed to customers, when supported by distribution records

Do not convert purchasing data into a recovery, diversion, disposal, recycling, or pollution-prevention result without records supporting that outcome.

Identify Outcomes That Require Modeling

Environmental outcomes generally require more than package specifications and order quantities.

Claims involving the following subjects may require a product-specific calculation, lifecycle assessment, supplier study, or another documented methodology:

• Greenhouse-gas emissions
• Carbon footprint
• Energy use
• Water use
• Waste generation
• Virgin-material displacement
• Transportation impacts
• Manufacturing impacts
• Recycling outcomes
• Landfill diversion
• Ocean or waterway pollution prevention
• Total lifecycle performance

A modeled result should identify the data, assumptions, calculation method, comparison, and limitations used to produce it.

Before relying on a modeled figure, confirm:

• The exact package, material, and production configuration covered
• Whether the data is supplier-specific, industry-average, or estimated
• The date and geographic relevance of the data
• The lifecycle stages included
• The baseline used for comparison
• The functional unit
• The treatment of closures, liners, labels, and other components
• The transportation distances and manufacturing locations assumed
• The end-of-life scenarios included
• Whether the methodology has been reviewed or verified
• Whether the result can reasonably be applied to the intended claim

A study about one resin, supplier, package format, manufacturing process, or geographic market should not automatically be applied to another.

Define the Baseline

An environmental comparison requires a clear baseline.

The baseline is the package or scenario against which the proposed configuration is measured. Depending on the project, it may be:

• The company’s current packaging
• A previous packaging configuration
• A documented virgin-material equivalent
• Another package that performs the same function
• An industry-average package supported by appropriate data
• A defined end-of-life scenario

The baseline should be specific enough to enable reproduction of the comparison.

Document its:

• Materials
• Component weights
• Dimensions
• Capacity
• Closure and liner
• Labels and secondary components
• Manufacturing process and location
• Transportation assumptions
• Product-protection requirements
• Expected end-of-life pathway
• Data source and date

Changing the baseline can change the result.

A comparison with a heavier or functionally different package may yield an apparent benefit that would not exist with a lighter equivalent. A comparison against virgin resin does not establish the same result as a comparison against another recycled-content package.

Describe the baseline whenever presenting the result.

Set the System Boundary

The system boundary identifies which stages of the packaging lifecycle are included.

An evaluation may cover:

• Raw-material sourcing
• Material processing
• Package manufacturing
• Component manufacturing
• Transportation between suppliers
• Delivery to the customer
• Filling and assembly
• Product distribution
• Customer use
• Reuse
• Collection and sorting
• Recycling
• Composting
• Incineration
• Landfill disposal
• Other end-of-life pathways

Not every analysis includes every stage.

A manufacturing-only comparison does not establish total lifecycle performance. A material-production estimate may exclude the closure, label, freight, filling process, product loss, and end-of-life conditions. A recycling scenario may not represent locations where the package is not accepted.

State which stages are included and excluded.

Do not describe a limited calculation as the package’s complete environmental impact.

Evaluate the Quality of the Evidence

Not all sources provide the same level of support.

Product-specific documentation should be prioritized when evaluating a particular packaging configuration. General information about a material may provide context but may not establish the composition, manufacturing process, performance, or environmental impact of the specific package.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Current product specifications
• Supplier material attestations
• Recycled-content documentation
• Plant-based or biobased-content documentation
• Ocean-bound sourcing documentation
• Component weights and drawings
• Manufacturing records
• Purchase and distribution records
• Product-specific lifecycle assessments
• Supplier-specific environmental studies
• Independently reviewed calculations
• Government or recognized industry datasets
• Applicable certification and testing records

For each source, confirm:

• Who produced it
• When it was produced or last reviewed
• Which material, supplier, facility, product, or production run it covers
• Which geographic market it represents
• Which lifecycle stages it includes
• Whether the calculation method is disclosed
• Whether assumptions and limitations are identified
• Whether independent review or verification occurred
• Whether the source supports the exact claim being considered

A broad industry study should not be presented as a product-specific result. Supplier data should not be applied beyond the material, facility, process, or production configuration it covers.

Documentation should be reviewed again when any of the following change: material, supplier, product design, component weight, manufacturing location, transportation route, or calculation method.

Account for End-of-Life Uncertainty

End-of-life modeling requires assumptions about what happens after the customer uses the package.

Those assumptions may include:

• Whether the package is emptied and cleaned
• Whether components are separated
• Whether the local program accepts the material and package format
• Whether the package is collected
• Whether it is captured by a sorting system
• Whether the collected material is processed
• Whether it is recycled into another product
• Whether it is sent to a landfill or incinerator
• Whether another documented pathway is available

A modeled recycling scenario is not the same as a verified recycling result.

Likewise, a package’s resin type or technical recyclability does not prove that the package will be accepted, collected, sorted, or reprocessed in every location.

When end-of-life information is included in an analysis, identify:

• The geographic area
• The applicable waste-management program
• The package and components covered
• The assumed collection and processing rates
• The source and date of those assumptions
• Any components excluded from the scenario
• The alternative disposal pathways considered

Use conditional language when the outcome depends on customer behavior or local infrastructure.

Do not treat potential recyclability, compostability, reuse, or recovery as a confirmed outcome without evidence that the applicable pathway was available and used.

Keep the Claim Within the Evidence

The wording of an environmental claim should not extend beyond the documented result.

A clear claim generally identifies:

• The exact package or component
• The attribute or outcome being described
• The applicable percentage, quantity, or comparison
• The reporting period
• The baseline, when a comparison is made
• The lifecycle stages included
• The source or methodology
• Important assumptions or limitations

Appropriate language may include:

• The molded component contains a documented percentage of recycled material.
• The order represented a documented weight of reclaimed or plant-based material.
• The comparison covered the package body and closure but excluded labels and transportation.
• The modeled estimate used a defined baseline and specified lifecycle boundary.
• The result applies to the documented configuration and reporting period.

Avoid converting a limited result into a broader claim such as:

• Reduces the package’s carbon footprint
• Saves energy
• Eliminates waste
• Diverts packaging from landfills
• Keeps plastic out of the ocean
• Prevents pollution
• Avoids virgin-plastic production
• Creates a closed-loop system
• Provides the lowest-impact option
• Represents the most sustainable package
• Is environmentally friendly or eco-friendly without further qualification

A comparative claim should identify what was compared and the basis for the comparison.

A modeled estimate should be described as an estimate. A material-content calculation should be described as a material-content calculation. A purchasing total should be described as such.

Precision in the language is as important as precision in the calculation.

Create a Claim-Substantiation Record

Before publishing an environmental claim, retain a record that allows another reviewer to understand and reproduce it.

The record should identify:

• Final claim language
• Exact product and SKU
• Complete component configuration
• Functional unit
• Baseline
• System boundary
• Geographic area
• Reporting period
• Material and component weights
• Material-content percentages
• Unit quantities
• Data sources
• Supplier documentation
• Calculation method
• Conversion factors
• Assumptions
• Exclusions
• Limitations
• Calculation date
• Responsible reviewer
• Approval date
• Next review date

Retain the supporting product specifications, supplier records, purchase records, calculation files, studies, and approvals with the final claim.

If the claim will be used by a customer, distributor, retailer, or another outside party, provide enough context for that party to understand what the figure does and does not represent.

Do not provide a standalone number without its scope, method, reporting period, and limitations.

Reconfirm the Measurement When the Package Changes

A previous result may no longer apply if any part of the packaging system or calculation changes.

Reconfirm the analysis when there is a change to:

• Package body
• Closure
• Liner
• Label
• Ink
• Adhesive
• Seal
• Insert
• Tamper-evident component
• Secondary packaging
• Component weight
• Material formulation
• Recycled or plant-based content
• Supplier
• Manufacturing process
• Manufacturing location
• Transportation route
• Packaged product
• Fill quantity
• Functional unit
• Baseline
• System boundary
• End-of-life assumption
• Data source or methodology

A result should not be treated as permanent merely because the product name or SKU remains the same.

Measure Before Communicating

Responsible packaging measurement begins with the exact package, a defined question, an equivalent functional unit, and a documented baseline.

Measure product and material attributes directly when the records support them. Treat carbon, energy, water, waste, virgin-material displacement, pollution prevention, and total lifecycle performance as modeled outcomes that require additional evidence.

Keep purchasing data separate from verified environmental results. State the lifecycle stages included. Document assumptions and limitations. Use claim language that matches the scope of the evidence.

For material-specific information, review Understanding Hemp Plastic Packaging and Understanding Reclaimed Ocean-Bound Plastic Packaging.

Contact the Sana Packaging team to request samples, product-specific documentation, component information, and current specifications for a packaging evaluation.

Last reviewed: August 27, 2026.

Product specifications, component weights, material formulations, suppliers, manufacturing locations, documentation, data sources, calculation methods, and available end-of-life pathways can change. Confirm the current information on the exact packaging configuration and intended claim before publishing an environmental impact figure or comparison.