It feels like one of those environmental debates we settled a long time ago.
Paper comes from trees, breaks down, and feels natural. Plastic comes from fossil fuels and represents pollution.
So if we're trying to make the environmentally responsible choice, paper seems like the obvious answer.
Except the closer you look, the less obvious it gets.
Depending on the conditions, paper can require more material, water, and energy to produce than plastic. Plastic can perform better in some lifecycle assessments, while also creating challenges around recycling, microplastics, and environmental impact.
In this episode of We Fixed It, Christine Yeager joins the conversation to unpack the complicated reality behind one of the most familiar sustainability questions.
Christine spent more than 11 years at Coca-Cola, eventually leading its North American Sustainability Project Management Office. She also worked with Circular Action Alliance to help move Extended Producer Responsibility programs from policy into implementation. Today, she helps producers and service providers navigate EPR.
The conversation explores packaging choices, lifecycle assessments, recycling infrastructure, consumer behavior, corporate sustainability, and the economics behind Extended Producer Responsibility.
Because the real question isn't simply paper or plastic?
It's:
What happens to that material across its entire lifecycle?
What You Will Learn
Why paper isn't automatically more sustainable than plastic
Why plastic can perform better in some lifecycle assessments
How lifecycle assessments influence packaging decisions
Why packaging weight matters
How energy sources can change the environmental impact of paper
Why recyclability doesn't guarantee actual recycling
What Extended Producer Responsibility means
How EPR changes the economics of packaging
Why EPR primarily incentivizes recyclability
Why recycling is heavily influenced by geography
Why the same packaging can have different outcomes in different locations
Why local infrastructure matters
Why consumers respond strongly to “recyclable” and “compostable”
Why compostable packaging can still create infrastructure challenges
What companies can learn from McDonald's paper straw experience
What Coca-Cola learned from changing Sprite's packaging
Why some sustainability work is invisible to consumers
Why recycling needs functioning end markets
Why recycled material can be more expensive than virgin material
How EPR could change corporate packaging decisions
About the Guest
Christine Yeager is an environmental sustainability professional, consultant, and founder of CSY Impact Consulting.
Christine spent more than 11 years at Coca-Cola and eventually led its North American Sustainability Project Management Office.
She later worked with Circular Action Alliance, helping move Extended Producer Responsibility programs from policy toward implementation.
Today, Christine helps producers and service providers navigate EPR and sustainability challenges, with a focus on the systems, economics, and practical realities behind environmental impact.
Christine also hosts the Change Cycle podcast.
Connect with Christine Yeager
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/christinesyeager/
Website - https://www.csyimpact.com
Change Cycle podcast - https://www.csyimpact.com/podcast
Connect With the Show
Subscribe for more deep dives where we fix big business problems with fresh perspectives.
Website:www.wefixeditpod.com
Follow us on:
Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod
YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod
If you liked this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your friends!
Keep listening to find out how we fix companies and put them back better than we found them.
Disclaimer
A quick disclaimer. We are going into this somewhat cold and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice, financial advice or anything that would get us in trouble.
These are our views and opinions. We’re here to ask the kinds of questions everyone’s thinking, have an engaging conversation and maybe come to some conclusions that we feel are worth exploring.
By the end, if we fixed it, you’re welcome.
All trademarks, IP and brand elements discussed are property of their respective owners.
