Pallet carbon footprint: what the LCA studies say
In briefThe independent LCA studies we have read give the wooden pallet a much lower carbon footprint per trip than plastic: 71.8-80.3% lower in Anil et al. 2020, and 17 against 1,790 kg CO2e per 1,000 trips in Deviatkin and Horttanainen 2020. Plastic narrows the gap only with many trips, low losses and recycling at end of life.
Plastic pallets are often sold as the green choice. Independent studies on pallet carbon footprint say the opposite, at least under the assumptions they use. ROLL also sells plastic pallets, which is why we cite only studies published by universities and journals here, with their limits.
The verdict of the independent studies
| Study | Context | What it compares | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anil et al. 2020, Journal of Industrial Ecology [1][2] | United States, grocery retail | HT or RF treated wood against plastic, cradle to grave | wood 71.8% (HT) and 80.3% (RF) lower per trip |
| Deviatkin and Horttanainen 2020, E3S [3] | Finland, EUR pallet, literature data | wood against virgin plastic, incineration at end of life | 17 against 1,790 kg CO2e per 1,000 trips |
| Shao and Cui 2025, Pigment & Resin Technology [4] | 1×1.2 m pallets, four pallets, twelve impact categories | wood against several plastic pallets | wood has the lowest impact in the raw material, processing and waste stages |
| Halleröd and Turefeldt 2024, Chalmers thesis [5] | Nordic market, literature review | recycled plastic with a proprietary process against wood | benefits of recycled material only in a circular system; no figures in the abstract |
We have read only the abstracts of the Chinese study and the Swedish thesis. The figures in the table come from the first two.
Anil et al. 2020: wood 72-80% lower per trip
The study, carried out at Penn State, is a cradle-to-grave LCA of pallets in American grocery retail. It compares impacts over one trip and over 100,000 trips [2]. Over one trip, heat-treated (HT) or radio-frequency treated (RF) wooden pallets have a carbon footprint 71.8% and 80.3% lower than plastic [2]. The authors write that over 100,000 trips the difference is even wider [2].
The study also measures the treatment of the wood: about 15.95 kg CO2e for a pallet fumigated with methyl bromide against about 12.69 kg with heat treatment [2]. The radio-frequency figure is a theoretical calculation, as the university itself points out [6].
Deviatkin and Horttanainen 2020: 17 against 1,790 kg CO2e
The Finnish study compares a 1200×800 wooden EUR pallet with a virgin plastic one, using data from the literature [3]. The main figures:
| Item | Wood | Virgin plastic |
|---|---|---|
| Production, cradle to gate | 5.0 kg CO2e (-34 with sequestered carbon) | 62 kg CO2e |
| Assumed service life | 20 uses | 66 uses |
| Cradle to grave, per pallet | 0.34 kg CO2e | 120 kg CO2e |
| Cradle to grave, per 1,000 trips | 17 kg CO2e | 1,790 kg CO2e |
End of life: incineration for both [3]. Per trip, that is about 0.017 kg CO2e for wood and 1.8 kg for plastic, our own calculation from the study's data. Plastic makes more than three times as many trips and still stays about a hundred times higher.
The assumptions that change the result
An LCA answers the question you ask it. Before you cite one, check these five assumptions:
- Trips per pallet. This is the variable that weighs most. Penn State points out that a plastic pallet can make more than 200 trips before it is discarded [6]; in the independent studies we read, virgin plastic does not catch up with wood even with many trips.
- Losses. A pallet lost on its third trip spreads the whole production footprint over just three trips. How to measure losses is explained in renting or buying pallets.
- End of life. Deviatkin and Horttanainen assume incineration [3]. If the pallet goes back into granulate, the footprint per trip falls.
- Virgin or recycled. Production weighs heavily for plastic: 62 kg CO2e for a virgin pallet [3]. For recycled material in a closed loop we found no open peer-reviewed figures [5].
- Carbon in the wood. With sequestration, the wooden pallet starts from -34 kg CO2e instead of 5.0 [3].
On service life, almost all public data comes from sellers of one of the two materials. You will find it, with who commissioned it, in plastic or wooden pallets.
When plastic narrows the gap
Plastic narrows the gap when:
- it circulates in a closed loop with low losses and measured trips;
- at end of life it goes back to the manufacturer and becomes regrind instead of being incinerated (see used pallets and recycling);
- it already contains recycled plastic, which the EU Packaging Regulation will require for many plastic packaging items from 2030 (see reusable pallets and the PPWR).
There are also non-climate reasons to choose plastic: hygiene, washing, constant weight, export without ISPM 15. These are real advantages, but they do not reduce the carbon footprint.
How to calculate your footprint per trip
- Ask the supplier for the emissions per pallet, ideally in an environmental product declaration with a stated method.
- Add end of life (recycling or incineration), empty return transport and washing.
- Measure the real trips: how many pallets you buy each year against how many shipments you make.
- Divide the total emissions by the trips.
An example with the figures from Deviatkin and Horttanainen: 120 kg CO2e per plastic pallet [3] divided by 66 trips comes to about 1.8 kg per trip. If the pallet is lost after 10 trips, it is about 12 kg. This is an order of magnitude, not a figure for reporting.
Be wary of claims: what to ask the supplier
- Who paid for the study and whether it went through critical review.
- How many trips it assumes and in which loop.
- Which end of life it assumes and whether it includes carbon sequestration in wood.
- Whether the comparison covers virgin or recycled plastic, and in what percentage.
If the supplier cannot answer these questions, the "green pallet" claim remains hard to verify.
Frequently asked questions
Do plastic pallets pollute more than wooden ones?
On carbon footprint, yes, in the independent studies we have read. Anil et al. (2020) find a per-trip footprint for treated wooden pallets that is 71.8-80.3% lower; Deviatkin and Horttanainen (2020) calculate 17 kg CO2e for wood and 1,790 kg CO2e for virgin plastic per 1,000 trips. The result depends on the trips, losses and end of life assumed.
How many trips does a plastic pallet need to break even with wood?
In the independent studies we read there is no break-even with virgin plastic. In Deviatkin and Horttanainen the plastic pallet makes 66 uses against 20 for wood and still stays about a hundred times higher per trip. Calculations that favour plastic usually come from studies commissioned by those who sell it, with different assumptions.
Does a recycled plastic pallet change the result?
It can, because production weighs heavily in the footprint of plastic. We have not found an open peer-reviewed study on recycled plastic pallets in a closed loop with comparable figures. A bachelor's thesis from Chalmers (2024) concludes that the benefits of recycled material depend on a genuinely circular system.
How do I calculate the carbon footprint of my pallets?
Take the emissions per pallet stated by the supplier, ideally in an environmental product declaration, and add end of life, return transport and washing. Divide by the real number of trips the pallet makes in your loop, which depends on losses. The number of trips matters more than the material.
Do the studies account for the carbon stored in wood?
It depends on the study. Deviatkin and Horttanainen give both versions: producing a wooden pallet comes to 5.0 kg CO2e, which becomes -34 kg CO2e if you count the carbon sequestered in the wood. When you read a comparison, always check whether sequestration is included.
Sources
- Anil S.K. et al. (2020), Life cycle assessment comparison of wooden and plastic pallets in the grocery industry, Journal of Industrial Ecology 24(4): 871-886
- Anil et al. 2020, record and abstract on RePEc/IDEAS
- Deviatkin I., Horttanainen M. (2020), Carbon footprint of an EUR-sized wooden and a plastic pallet, E3S Web of Conferences 158, 03001
- Shao F., Cui Q. (2025), Comparison of life cycle assessment for wooden pallet and different plastic pallets based on SimaPro, Pigment & Resin Technology 54(1): 109-115
- Halleröd P., Turefeldt M. (2024), A literature comparison of the life cycle assessments of wood and recycled plastic pallets, bachelor's thesis, Chalmers
- Penn State News: Wooden or plastic pallets: which are more eco-friendly? (3/2/2020)
Tell us the diameter, weight and destination, and we will point you to the right solution.
Contact us