Metsä Board publishes a verified carbon footprint case study* comparing a takeaway food tray made of Metsä Board’s PE-coated board to a tray made of fossil-based PP plastics

Metsä Board published a third‑party‑verified cradle‑to‑grave LCA showing its PE‑coated Pro FSB Cup takeaway tray has a negative carbon footprint under a European end‑of‑life mix (biogenic carbon sequestration exceeds lifecycle emissions), versus 0.112 kg CO2e for a fossil‑based polypropylene (PP) tray; the study followed ISO standards and IPCC 2021 methodology. The report finds the paperboard tray’s footprint is 91% lower than PP under a 100% incineration scenario, notes EU recycling rates of ~87% for paperboard versus ~42% for plastics (Eurostat 2023), and highlights product details (PE‑coated tray 18.9 g, 0.65 g PE; PP tray 27 g) and Metsä Board’s 89% fossil‑free energy use in 2024 with a 2030 fossil‑free target. The verified, science‑based data strengthens Metsä Board’s ESG and commercial positioning and may support customer substitution of plastic with recyclable paperboard where technically appropriate, though outcomes will hinge on end‑of‑life infrastructure and application suitability.

Analysis

Metsä Board published a third‑party verified cradle‑to‑grave LCA comparing its PE‑coated Pro FSB Cup takeaway tray with a fossil‑based polypropylene (PP) tray, following ISO 14040/44/67 standards and the IPCC 2021 methodology; verification was provided by RISE and SimaPro UK. The study reports a negative carbon footprint for the paperboard tray under a European end‑of‑life mix (biogenic carbon sequestration exceeds life‑cycle emissions), while the PP tray’s footprint was 0.112 kg CO2e; the paperboard tray weighs 18.9 g (0.65 g PE) versus 27 g for the PP tray.

Under a 100% incineration scenario the paperboard tray’s footprint is 91% lower than PP, reflecting that paperboard emissions are balanced by tree growth carbon uptake whereas fossil plastics add new carbon; Eurostat 2023 recycling rates cited are ~87% for paper/cardboard versus ~42% for plastics, which materially affects lifecycle outcomes. Metsä Board highlights its 89% fossil‑free energy use in 2024 and a target to phase out fossil energy by 2030, reinforcing the LCA advantage in production emissions.

The verified study strengthens Metsä Board’s ESG and commercial positioning and supports potential substitution of plastic trays where technical requirements are met, but the outcome is contingent on end‑of‑life infrastructure, application suitability and customer adoption. Investors should note the company’s scale (EUR 1.9bn sales in 2024, listed on Nasdaq Helsinki) which helps commercial rollout, while remaining mindful of execution risk and scrutiny around comparative LCAs despite independent verification.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Consider increasing exposure to Metsä Board or comparable recyclable paperboard suppliers as verifiable LCA advantages and a clear 2030 fossil‑free target support ESG‑driven demand
• Monitor customer adoption signals (large foodservice contracts, pilot programs, procurement tender wins) and review the technical background report and third‑party verification on Metsä Board’s website before adding to positions
• Track regional end‑of‑life metrics and policy shifts (recycling and incineration rates, single‑use packaging regulations) because the LCA advantage depends heavily on infrastructure and waste management outcomes
• Maintain a risk‑managed position size or use hedges until broad commercial substitution is demonstrated across customers and geographies, given remaining execution and application‑suitability risks