Plastic is today at the heart of many logistical and environmental reflections. In warehouses, shipments and handling operations, it remains omnipresent: stretch film, covers, bags, protections, grouping of parcels, securing of pallets. Faced with this dependence, many companies are looking for virtuous solutions.
Among the alternatives that often come up, biodegradable plastic film is attracting growing interest. On paper, the idea seems attractive: keeping the practical uses of plastic film while reducing its environmental impact. The reasoning seems simple. If plastic poses a problem, it would be enough to use a plastic capable of degrading better.
But in logistics, environmental subjects are rarely that simple. Behind the attractiveness of the term “biodegradable”, a more fundamental question arises: is it a real solution or a false good idea?
Why is biodegradable plastic film so appealing ? :
The success of this idea rests on a very comfortable promise for companies: changing the material without changing the system. In other words, continuing to operate in the same way, while displaying an environmental improvement.
In a logistical universe where habits are strong, this is naturally appealing. Pallet wrapping remains a very widespread practice, because it is simple to implement, known by operators and adaptable to many flows. Looking for a biodegradable version of the film therefore makes it possible, in appearance, to keep the same operational logic.
This solution also attracts because it seems to respond quickly to environmental concerns. At a time when companies are working on their company carbon footprint, their CSR policy or their responsible communication, the idea of a “less problematic” plastic may seem less reassuring.
The problem of plastic does not come only from its material :
The first limit of this reasoning is that it reduces the problem to the sole nature of the material. Yet, in logistics, the subject is not only about plastic itself, but also about its mode of use.
A film, even biodegradable, often remains a single-use packaging. It has to be bought, stored, used, removed, then thrown away after a single rotation or after a very short period of use. In other words, one remains in a linear logic: consume, use, eliminate.
This is where the debate becomes important. Because the real issue is not only to replace one plastic with another, but to know whether one continues to depend on a disposable consumable. From this angle: biodegradable plastic film does not necessarily transform the logistical model. It can sometimes simply soften its image.
Biodegradable does not mean without impact:
The term “biodegradable” easily gives the impression that a product disappears naturally, quickly and without consequence. In reality, things are more complex.
A biodegradable material needs precise conditions to decompose correctly. Depending on the type of plastic, the treatment conditions, the temperature, the humidity or the available channel, the result can be very different from the perceived promise.
This means that a product presented as more virtuous does not necessarily bring the expected benefit in daily practice. And above all, this can maintain an illusion of simplicity: the idea that waste would no longer really be a problem, since it would be “biodegradable”.
Yet waste remains waste. Even when it degrades better, it still implies production, consumption of material, transport, short use and an end of life to manage.
A technical answer to a broader problem :
Plastic recycling and technical alternatives have their usefulness. But they answer a problem at the end of the chain, whereas the most structuring question is upstream: are so many disposable consumables still needed in certain flows?
It is here that biodegradable plastic film can become a false good idea. Not because it is necessarily useless in all cases, but because it risks diverting attention from the real subject.
The real subject is the logistical function. Do we really need to wrap this pallet with a disposable film? Must we protect, hold, group, cover? And above all: is there a reusable solution or a better organization of the flow that would make it possible to avoid this consumable?
As long as these questions are not asked, the change of material often remains a marginal improvement rather than a real transformation.
The trap: improving without questioning :
In many companies, the search for alternatives fits into a logic of compromise. One wants to reduce the impact without disrupting operations. This approach is understandable, but it has a limit: it often pushes one to favor solutions compatible with what already exists, even when they are not the most relevant in the long term.
This is precisely what makes biodegradable plastic film attractive. It makes it possible to respond quickly to an internal or external demand without reviewing the logistical organization. But this comfort has a cost: it can slow down reflection on more structuring levers, such as reusable packaging, the standardization of flows or the optimization of internal flows.
In other words, one improves what exists, without always asking whether what exists remains the right model.
In which cases can this solution nevertheless have an interest ? :
Saying that biodegradable plastic film is not a miracle solution does not mean that it is useless in all cases. It can have an interest in certain precise situations, notably when the company cannot yet transform its logistical organization in depth.
For example, it can constitute a transitional solution when:
• Certain flows remain very variable
• The products do not yet allow sufficient standardization
• No return logistics is in place
• The alternatives are not yet operational
• A partial reduction of the impact is already sought in the short term
Within this framework, it can represent a one-off improvement. But it must be considered for what it really is: an intermediate solution, not necessarily a fundamental answer.
The more structuring alternatives :
When a company truly wants to reduce its dependence on disposable plastic, the most interesting levers are frequently found elsewhere.
The first path consists of rethinking the function of holding and protection with reusable solutions. A cover replacing stretch film can, for example, be much more relevant on regular flows, inter-site shuttles or standardized pallets.
Reusable crates also represent a powerful alternative. When a product circulates in a stable, robust container designed for several rotations, the need to wrap decreases strongly.
It is also possible to act on logistical palletization itself. Some pallets are wrapped mainly because they are badly built, unstable or too heterogeneous. Improving the load structure, homogenizing formats or better organizing supports makes it possible to greatly reduce reliance on film.
Finally, when a company sets up true circular logistics, it no longer seeks only to throw away better. It seeks to throw away less.
The right criterion: the total cost of ownership :
Another risk of biodegradable film is to give the impression of a better choice simply because it appears “cleaner” from a marketing point of view. Yet a company should not reason only in purchase price or in immediate environmental image.
The right criterion remains the total cost of ownership. It is necessary to integrate:
• Repeated purchases
• The frequency of use
• The application time
• The management of the end of life
• The impact on flows
• The robustness of the solution
• Its capacity to reduce consumption sustainably
From this angle, a reusable solution can be much more interesting than a film, even presented as biodegradable, as soon as the flows are sufficiently regular.
A good question to ask oneself :
Basically, the question is not only: “Is this film more ecological?”
The more useful question is: why are we still using a disposable film on this flow?
This nuance is essential. Because if a company is content with changing the material without questioning the use, it risks missing out on more important gains. On the other hand, if it analyzes its real needs, its flows, its rotations and its constraints, it can discover that the real lever is not in a new plastic, but in a new organization.
Conclusion :
Biodegradable plastic film may seem to be an obvious answer to the limits of classic plastic. In reality, it is often a more nuanced solution than it appears.
In some cases, it can represent a transitional improvement. But in many situations, it does not call into question the underlying problem: dependence on reusable packaging, on better logistical palletization, on reusable crates or on a more coherent organization of flows.
In other words, biodegradable plastic film is not always a bad idea. But it is often an incomplete answer to a broader problem. And in logistics, the most interesting solutions are rarely those that only change the material. They are those that improve the system: Loopipak.
Biodegradable plastic film: real solution or false good idea ?