Tetra Pak Launches FY25 Sustainability Report

Tetra Pak reports 34% emissions cut since 2019

Tetra Pak has published its 27th annual sustainability report, showing substantial progress on climate targets. The packaging manufacturer says it has reduced greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain by 34% since 2019. For context, that represents a significant acceleration. Last year the company reported a 25% reduction, and the year before that, 20%.

The report covers five core areas: climate action, circularity, food systems, nature, and social sustainability. These aren’t treated as separate objectives. Instead, Tetra Pak frames them as interconnected challenges that require coordinated responses.

For UK businesses tracking supply chain emissions, the numbers matter. Many companies report Scope 3 emissions from packaging as a material part of their carbon footprint. Therefore, measurable reductions from major suppliers like Tetra Pak can directly affect downstream carbon reporting. That’s particularly relevant for food and beverage manufacturers working toward net zero or responding to procurement requirements that include carbon intensity.

The report also highlights continued investment in packaging R&D, renewable energy adoption, and initiatives to improve post-consumer recycling rates. Notably, Tetra Pak has launched nature restoration work in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, marking its first rural land restoration program using native species.

Emissions performance shows year-on-year improvement

The 34% emissions reduction covers the entire value chain, not just Tetra Pak’s direct operations. Consequently, it includes manufacturing, raw materials, logistics, and end-of-life stages. That’s a broader boundary than many businesses report, and it reflects the reality that packaging emissions occur across multiple stages and organisations.

In its previous reporting cycle, Tetra Pak said emissions from its own operations had fallen 54% since 2019. Meanwhile, 94% of energy used in company facilities came from renewable sources. These operational improvements contribute to the overall value chain figure, but the headline reduction also depends on changes further upstream and downstream.

The year-on-year trajectory tells a clear story. A 20% reduction in 2023, then 25% in 2024, and now 34% in 2025 suggests the company has maintained momentum rather than plateauing after early gains. For businesses evaluating supplier performance, that pattern matters more than a single snapshot.

However, it’s important to recognise that value chain emissions data relies on assumptions and estimates, particularly for Scope 3 categories. Tetra Pak hasn’t published a detailed breakdown of methodology changes between reporting periods, so some of the improvement may reflect updated calculation methods rather than physical emissions reductions alone.

Paper-based barrier technology cuts packaging carbon footprint

Tetra Pak has introduced a paper-based barrier aseptic carton that reportedly reduces the package’s carbon footprint by 33%. The innovation replaces aluminium foil with a paper-based barrier layer, maintaining the aseptic properties required for long-life beverages while lowering embodied carbon.

This development follows a €100 million annual investment in packaging research and development, planned over several years. The investment signals a strategic commitment to material innovation rather than incremental improvements to existing designs.

For food and beverage businesses, the commercial implications depend on several factors. First, the new packaging must meet technical requirements for shelf life, product safety, and supply chain handling. Second, it must be available at a cost that works within existing pricing structures. Third, customers and retailers must accept any visual or functional differences.

From a sustainability perspective, the carbon reduction is significant. A 33% cut in packaging emissions can materially improve a product’s overall footprint, especially for beverages where packaging represents a substantial share of lifecycle emissions. Furthermore, lower carbon packaging may help businesses meet public sector procurement standards or respond to retailer sustainability requirements.

Nevertheless, the environmental case for any packaging depends on the full system, not just manufacturing emissions. End-of-life collection and recycling rates determine whether lower-carbon production translates into a genuinely improved outcome. Tetra Pak acknowledges this by linking packaging innovation to its circularity work.

Recycling and circularity efforts target post-consumer systems

Tetra Pak continues to invest in improving collection and recycling systems for used beverage cartons. These efforts focus on infrastructure and partnerships rather than simply redesigning the package itself. That’s because beverage carton recycling depends on municipal collection systems, sorting facilities, and specialist reprocessing capacity.

In the UK, beverage carton recycling rates have historically lagged behind other packaging materials. Local authority collection varies, and many consumers remain unclear about whether cartons can be recycled at home. As a result, even well-designed recyclable packaging can end up in residual waste.

Tetra Pak’s approach involves working with waste management companies, local authorities, and industry bodies to expand collection and improve sorting. The company also supports initiatives to develop end markets for recovered fibre and other materials from cartons. Without viable end markets, collection alone doesn’t create a circular system.

For businesses using Tetra Pak packaging, this matters for two reasons. First, Extended Producer Responsibility regulations in the UK now require producers to fund waste management costs. Consequently, packaging with higher recycling rates may carry lower compliance fees under the new system. Second, corporate sustainability commitments increasingly reference circularity metrics alongside carbon targets. Demonstrating that packaging is collected and recycled in practice, not just theoretically recyclable, strengthens those claims.

The recycling challenge also intersects with carbon reporting. If packaging ends up in landfill or incineration rather than being recycled, the associated emissions differ significantly. Therefore, circularity performance affects Scope 3 calculations for businesses throughout the supply chain.

Nature restoration programme launches in Brazil

Tetra Pak has started the Araucaria Conservation Programme, its first initiative to restore rural land in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest using native species. The programme represents a shift toward nature-based solutions alongside carbon reduction and circularity.

The Atlantic Forest is one of the world’s most biodiverse regions, but also one of the most threatened. Restoration work focuses on reforestation with native species, which supports biodiversity, sequesters carbon, and helps stabilise local ecosystems. Tetra Pak sources some of its paperboard from sustainably managed forests, so the programme connects to its raw material supply chain.

For UK businesses, nature-based initiatives like this raise questions about credibility and scope. First, does the restoration activity offset emissions, or is it reported separately? Tetra Pak hasn’t explicitly framed the programme as carbon offsetting, which suggests it’s intended as an additional environmental benefit rather than a compensation mechanism.

Second, how does the activity relate to the company’s supply chain footprint? If the restored land doesn’t connect to Tetra Pak’s sourcing regions or operational impacts, the environmental logic becomes less direct. However, the programme does align with emerging expectations around biodiversity and nature-positive commitments, which are increasingly appearing in corporate sustainability frameworks.

Third, what governance and verification apply? Nature restoration projects vary widely in quality, depending on species selection, land management, community involvement, and long-term stewardship. Without transparent reporting on these factors, it’s difficult to assess the programme’s effectiveness.

What this means for UK food and beverage businesses

• Tetra Pak has reduced value chain greenhouse gas emissions by 34% since 2019, a figure that includes manufacturing, raw materials, logistics, and end-of-life stages.
• The company’s new paper-based barrier aseptic carton cuts packaging carbon footprint by 33% compared to previous designs.
• Renewable energy now accounts for 94% of energy used in Tetra Pak’s own operations, contributing to a 54% reduction in operational emissions since 2019.
• Tetra Pak is working with waste management partners to improve beverage carton collection and recycling rates, which affect both circularity metrics and Scope 3 emissions.
• The Araucaria Conservation Programme in Brazil represents Tetra Pak’s first rural land restoration initiative using native species in the Atlantic Forest.
• The sustainability report is the company’s 27th, indicating a long-term commitment to public disclosure and transparency on environmental performance.

Supply chain carbon reporting and packaging decisions

For businesses reporting Scope 3 emissions, packaging suppliers’ carbon performance flows directly into your own footprint. Tetra Pak’s 34% reduction since 2019 can therefore reduce the emissions intensity of products using their packaging. However, you’ll need to verify which baseline and methodology apply to your specific supply relationship.

Many UK businesses now face carbon reporting requirements under the Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR) framework, and larger companies must also report under the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). In addition, public sector suppliers working to Procurement Policy Note 06/21 must demonstrate credible carbon reduction plans. Supplier emissions data becomes evidence for these commitments.

Nevertheless, not all packaging emissions reductions are created equal. A supplier’s value chain reduction might result from improved manufacturing efficiency, renewable energy adoption, material substitution, or changes in calculation methodology. Each has different implications for your own reporting. Specifically, you should ask suppliers to clarify which emission sources have changed and whether the reduction applies to the products you purchase.

Furthermore, businesses working toward science-based targets need to show absolute emissions reductions, not just intensity improvements. If your production volumes increase, even lower-carbon packaging might not deliver the absolute reductions your target requires. Therefore, packaging decisions need to align with broader volume and growth planning.

Recycling infrastructure and Extended Producer Responsibility costs

The UK’s Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for packaging, which came into force in 2024, fundamentally changes the economics of packaging choice. Producers now pay fees based on the weight and material type of packaging they place on the market. Crucially, materials with higher recycling rates and better end-of-life outcomes attract lower fees.

Tetra Pak’s investment in recycling infrastructure aims to improve collection and reprocessing rates for beverage cartons. If successful, this could reduce EPR fees for businesses using their packaging. However, the financial benefit depends on how the fee structure evolves and whether recycling rates improve in practice, not just in theory.

Currently, beverage cartons face challenges in the UK waste system. Many local authorities collect them, but sorting and reprocessing capacity remains limited compared to materials like PET or aluminium. As a result, actual recycling rates lag behind technical recyclability. This gap matters because EPR fees will increasingly reflect real-world outcomes rather than potential recyclability.

For businesses evaluating packaging options, the total cost now includes not just the purchase price but also the EPR fee, which varies by material. In addition, some retailers and procurement frameworks now include packaging circularity as a supplier selection criterion. Therefore, choosing suppliers actively working to improve recycling infrastructure may reduce both compliance costs and commercial risk.

Biodiversity and nature-positive commitments in supply chains

Tetra Pak’s Atlantic Forest restoration programme reflects a broader shift in corporate sustainability. Businesses are moving beyond carbon and circularity to include nature and biodiversity in their frameworks. This trend follows the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and growing investor pressure on nature-related risks.

For UK businesses, nature-positive commitments are starting to appear in procurement criteria, investor expectations, and voluntary frameworks like the Science Based Targets Network. Consequently, suppliers with active nature programmes may help businesses demonstrate progress on these emerging requirements.

However, the connection between a supplier’s nature work and your own environmental impact needs careful assessment. If Tetra Pak’s restoration programme occurs in Brazil but your supply chain sources materials from Scandinavia, the biodiversity benefit doesn’t directly mitigate your supply chain impact. Instead, it represents an additional positive contribution.

That distinction matters for reporting and claims. Nature restoration can support corporate sustainability goals, but it doesn’t offset biodiversity loss in unconnected ecosystems. Therefore, businesses should evaluate supplier nature programmes as part of a broader environmental strategy, not as a substitute for reducing direct impacts.

Government policy and industry resources

The UK government publishes guidance on carbon reporting requirements through the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Businesses can find information on SECR and mandatory climate-related disclosures on the government’s official website.

For packaging regulations, the Environment Agency provides detailed guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility requirements, including fee structures and reporting obligations. This information is available on the Environment Agency website.

Businesses working on sustainable procurement can access support through the SBS sustainable procurement programme, which helps suppliers meet public and private sector sustainability requirements. In addition, the SBS net zero programme provides support for carbon reporting and PPN 06/21 compliance.

Industry bodies including the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply (CIPS) and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) publish resources on supply chain sustainability and environmental reporting standards. These organisations offer guidance that complements regulatory requirements.