Paper Shopping Bag
PackagingCarbon Cost Index Score
Per kg
Methodology v1.0 · Last reviewed 2026-04-08
Scope Breakdown
| Scope | kgCO₂e | % of Total | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 | 3.6 | 5% | |
| Scope 2 | 10.8 | 15% | |
| Scope 3 | 57.6 | 80% | |
| Total | 72 | 100% |
Emission Hotspots
| Emission Hotspot | Scope | Est. % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| raw material extraction and pulping | S3 | 35% |
| paper production process (bleaching, drying, energy) | S3 | 30% |
| transportation and logistics | S3 | 20% |
| end-of-life (landfill methane emissions) | S3 | 12% |
| manufacturing waste and recycling | S1 | 3% |
Manufacturing Geography
- Region
- Global (China, United States, Canada)
- Grid Intensity
- 0.57 kgCO2e/kWh (global weighted average, IEA 2023)
Material Composition Assumptions
A standard paper shopping bag contains approximately 30 grams of material distributed across the following components. Kraft paper forms the primary structural element at roughly 85 percent of total weight, derived from virgin fiber pulp or recycled content depending on manufacturer specifications. Virgin fiber pulp comprises the base material when recycled content is unavailable or insufficient for strength requirements. Recycled fiber content varies significantly between manufacturers, typically ranging from zero to seventy percent of total fiber mass. Starch-based adhesives account for approximately 3 percent of bag weight, providing structural integrity at handle attachment points and bottom seams. Optional mineral coatings may add additional weight for enhanced printability or moisture resistance, though these represent less than 2 percent of typical bag composition.
Manufacturing Geography
Paper shopping bag production concentrates primarily in regions with established forestry industries and paper manufacturing infrastructure. China dominates global production capacity, leveraging significant pulp processing facilities and cost-effective manufacturing operations. North American manufacturers in the United States and Canada maintain substantial market share, particularly for domestic consumption, benefiting from abundant forest resources and integrated supply chains. The grid intensity of 0.57 kgCO2e per kilowatt-hour represents a weighted average across these primary manufacturing regions, reflecting the energy-intensive nature of pulping, bleaching, and drying processes required for paper production.
Regional Variation
| Manufacturing Region | Grid Intensity | Estimated CCI Score | Adjustment vs Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | 0.57 kgCO2e/kWh | 72 | Baseline |
| United States | 0.39 kgCO2e/kWh | 65 | -10% |
| Canada | 0.15 kgCO2e/kWh | 48 | -33% |
| European Union | 0.26 kgCO2e/kWh | 56 | -22% |
| Brazil | 0.07 kgCO2e/kWh | 42 | -42% |
Provenance Override Guidance
-
Submit detailed material composition data including exact percentages of virgin versus recycled fiber content, adhesive specifications, and any coating materials applied during manufacturing.
-
Provide energy consumption records for all manufacturing processes including pulping, bleaching, drying, and bag formation operations, along with corresponding electricity grid mix data for the production facility location.
-
Document transportation distances and methods from fiber source to pulp mill, pulp mill to paper manufacturer, and paper manufacturer to bag production facility, including vehicle fuel efficiency specifications.
-
Supply waste generation rates and disposal methods for production waste streams, including trim waste, off-specification products, and any material recovery or recycling programs implemented.
-
Confirm end-of-life disposal scenarios relevant to the intended market, including landfill methane capture rates, composting facility availability, and recycling infrastructure capacity for post-consumer paper bags.
Methodology Notes
- The CCI score represents cradle-to-grave emissions for a single-use paper shopping bag weighing approximately 30 grams, including raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and end-of-life disposal impacts.
- Scope 3 emissions dominate the profile due to upstream pulp production processes and downstream waste management impacts, particularly methane generation in landfill environments.
- The functional unit assumes single-use application without reuse, though actual environmental performance improves significantly with multiple use cycles.
- Biogenic carbon storage benefits are excluded from the assessment to maintain consistency with other packaging material comparisons.
- Transportation impacts reflect global average shipping distances, though actual values vary substantially based on supply chain configuration and market location.
- Regional grid intensity variations create significant uncertainty ranges, particularly for energy-intensive pulping and paper manufacturing operations.
Related Concepts
Sources
- ScienceDirect 2020 - Life cycle assessment of plastic grocery bags and their alternatives in cities with confined waste management structure — Paper bags generate higher global warming potential than plastic alternatives when biogenic carbon storage is excluded.
- Life Cycle Initiative 2020 - Single-use plastic bags and their alternatives: Recommendations from life cycle assessments — Reuse frequency emerges as the most critical factor determining environmental performance of different bag materials.
- UK Government 2011 - Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags — Paper bags require significantly more material mass and transportation energy compared to plastic alternatives.
- ScienceDirect 2024 - Life cycle assessment of plastic and paper carrying bags in the Philippines — Production phase dominates the environmental impact profile for paper shopping bags across different regional contexts.
- Boustead Consulting and Associates - Comparison of LCA for single-use plastic and paper bags — Manufacturing waste rates for paper bags exceed plastic alternatives by approximately double at twenty percent versus ten percent.