Compostable packaging often sounds like an easy sustainability win because it promises a guilt-free end-of-life.

Customers imagine packaging breaking down naturally and returning harmlessly to the environment, and brands adopt compostables, believing they represent a safer, more responsible choice. The appeal is understandable, but sustainability isn’t determined by intention alone. It’s determined by real-world outcomes.

In practice, most compostable packaging never actually gets composted.

Instead, it's frequently rejected by composting facilities, diverted to the trash, a driver of contamination in the composting streams that do accept these materials, or mistakenly placed in recycling streams, where it causes contamination.

When compostable materials end up in landfill, they can also contribute to methane emissions. While the idea of compostable packaging is attractive, the recovery systems required to support it consistently simply don’t exist for most e-commerce applications.

Many brands treat “compostable” as a shorthand for “environmentally friendly,” but compostability alone doesn’t guarantee better sustainability outcomes. A package isn’t sustainable simply because it can break down under ideal laboratory conditions.

Sustainability depends on whether that material actually breaks down in the real world, and whether doing so delivers measurable environmental benefits, such as reduced emissions, responsible resource use, or meaningful circularity.

In practice, most compostable packaging fails both tests:

It rarely reaches appropriate composting systems, and even when it does, the environmental gains often fall short of expectations compared to recyclable materials designed for existing recovery infrastructure.

Let’s be clear: composting readily biodegradable materials overall will be a critical sustainability process in our future. Unfortunately, where we stand today, compostable packaging is actually causing more environmental problems than solutions.

Compostable packaging will only break down under specific conditions, and most US consumers, particularly those in municipalities, don’t have an easy way to transport it to an industrial composting facility.

Therefore, sadly, we often find compostable packaging in places where it shouldn’t be – such as recycling facilities, food composting streams, yard waste compost piles, and landfills – causing contamination and increased methane emissions. This contamination lowers the quality of compost streams, making them less viable.

In brief, our enthusiasm for composting everything possible has actually hurt the overall viability of composting what’s realistic.  

Even in regions with composting facilities, packaging acceptance is far from guaranteed. Many composters focus on processing food scraps and organic waste, and are cautious about accepting packaging due to the risk of contamination. As a result, compostable packaging is often rejected and diverted to landfill, where it fails to deliver its intended environmental benefit.

In practice, compostable packaging faces several systemic barriers:

• Most U.S. households do not have access to industrial composting

• Many facilities do not accept packaging at all

• PLA and other bioplastics are frequently rejected

• Packaging suspected of contamination is often landfilled

• Composters typically prioritize food scraps over packaging materials

The takeaway is simple:

If customers cannot realistically compost a package, it is not compostable in practice. Without verified access to appropriate recovery systems, compostable packaging often performs no better, and sometimes worse, than conventional alternatives.

This is usually the next question — and it’s a fair one. If access to industrial composting is limited, doesn’t home-compostable packaging solve the problem?

Unfortunately, in most real-world scenarios, the answer is still no.

Home composting systems exist primarily to process food scraps and yard waste, producing compost people actually want to use in their gardens.

Compostable packaging, even when certified for home composting, introduces a very different material profile into that system. Packaging often breaks down more slowly, retains moisture, and can create wetter, denser, lower-quality compost. Many home composters report unfinished fragments, inconsistent breakdown, or compost that they no longer feel comfortable applying to edible gardens.

In practice, this discourages use and often leads to the same outcome as industrial compostables: the material is removed and landfilled.

There’s also a behavioral reality to consider.

Home composting requires knowledge, time, space, and ongoing attention. Even among environmentally motivated consumers, participation rates are limited — and packaging adds complexity to a process that already has a learning curve. When composting becomes confusing or yields poor results, people disengage. That doesn’t help composting systems; it weakens them.

So while home compostable packaging can break down under the right conditions, those conditions are far from universal — and the risk of contamination, frustration, and disposal remains high.

That said, if composting is being pursued as an end-of-life pathway for packaging, we believe there are two essential principles:

1. Certification matters.

Any compostable packaging should be clearly and credibly certified for both industrial and home compostability, wherever possible. Vague claims or single-pathway certifications increase confusion and contamination.

2. Contamination must be minimized.

Compostable packaging should be used sparingly, intentionally, and only where it clearly aligns with an existing composting system. Materials like PLA and other bioplastics that are frequently rejected by composters should be avoided unless there is verified acceptance and access.

The broader takeaway remains the same:

Compostability only delivers environmental value when it works in practice, not just in theory. If a package is unlikely to be composted correctly — whether at home or at an industrial facility — then labeling it compostable may do more harm than good.

In many cases, focusing on reduction, reuse, and highly recyclable materials supported by real recovery infrastructure remains the more sustainable choice today.

Even if composting infrastructure were widely available, compostable packaging would still present challenges that many brands don’t anticipate.

Compostable films often struggle to deliver the barrier performance required for real-world applications, particularly for products sensitive to moisture, oxygen, or heat.

Compared to conventional recyclable films, compostable materials tend to offer weaker moisture protection, limited oxygen barriers, lower heat resistance, and reduced shelf-life stability. For products like food, supplements, beauty items, or powders, these limitations can make compostable packaging impractical long before sustainability claims come into play.

Durability is another major constraint.

Compostable films are generally more prone to tearing and puncturing during shipping, handling, and storage. When packaging fails to protect the product, the resulting waste carries a far greater environmental footprint than the packaging itself, undermining the very sustainability goals compostable materials are meant to support.

In addition, many compostable films degrade or weaken over time, particularly under variable temperature and humidity conditions. This shorter usable lifespan increases the risk of packaging failures well before disposal, further reducing the likelihood that compostable packaging delivers meaningful environmental benefit in practice.

When compostable packaging is evaluated beyond its end-of-life claims, the environmental trade-offs become clearer, particularly upstream.

Many compostable films rely on virgin fossil fuel and agricultural resources, meaning they are produced from newly grown crops rather than recovered materials.

Most compostable films are made solely from two feedstocks: fossil fuels and corn or other industrially grown agricultural feedstocks that require significant resource investment, including:

• Water-intensive irrigation

• Fertilizers and agricultural chemicals

• Large land conversion efforts

• Energy-intensive processing and conversion

In many cases, the combined footprint of these inputs often exceeds that of packaging made from recycled paper or recycled plastic film, especially when recycled content displaces virgin material production.

By comparison, new, next-generation materials from non-extractive sources (seaweed, agricultural waste, or regenerative crops) are reaching the market and providing more viable, net-positive solutions. These packaging materials, like our Sway seaweed-based polybags, start off way ahead of the game by being carbon positive at the source.

End-of-life outcomes further complicate the sustainability equation.

Compostable packaging is rarely composted in practice, and when it ends up in landfill, which is the most common outcome for eCommerce packaging, it can contribute to methane emissions, a greenhouse gas significantly more potent than carbon dioxide. Rather than returning nutrients to the soil, compostable materials often end up in a linear waste stream, with unintended climate impacts.

Compostable packaging also lacks material circularity.

Once used, it typically has only one theoretical recovery pathway: industrial composting. Because these materials are not recyclable and are frequently rejected by composting facilities, they do not contribute to ongoing material reuse or circular systems.

For most eCommerce brands operating at scale, these environmental trade-offs make compostable packaging difficult to justify when measured against real-world outcomes.

Compostable packaging is not inherently unsustainable, but it only delivers environmental benefit under specific, tightly controlled conditions.

In a limited set of use cases, compostables can play a legitimate role within a broader waste management strategy.

Foodservice Environments with Established Organics Collection

Compostable packaging can make sense in foodservice settings where unavoidable food waste must already be composted.

In these environments, packaging is intentionally paired with food scraps and routed into an organics stream designed to handle both. When compostables help capture food waste and ensure it reaches composting facilities, they can support more effective organics diversion.

Compostable packaging can also be a more sustainable choice when it is intentionally used to support the development and adoption of novel, regenerative materials.

Packaging made from inputs such as seaweed, agricultural waste, or food byproducts can offer meaningful environmental advantages at the material source, including reduced reliance on extractive resources, lower land-use impacts, and, in some cases, net-positive carbon potential.

In these scenarios, compostability is less about the end-of-life outcome alone and more about enabling a new class of materials that start with a significantly smaller environmental footprint.

When thoughtfully applied — and paired with realistic recovery pathways — compostable packaging can help accelerate innovation in regenerative material systems that move packaging beyond conventional fossil- or crop-based inputs.

Closed-Loop Systems with High Volumes of Food Waste and Tightly Managed Waste Streams

Closed-loop systems, such as university dining halls, corporate campuses, or staffed event venues, offer conditions where compostable packaging is more likely to succeed.

In these settings, disposal behavior is guided or enforced, waste streams are monitored, and contamination risks are reduced. Because packaging does not rely on individual consumer judgment, compostables are more likely to reach appropriate composting infrastructure.

In these environments, the primary sustainability objective is often diverting food waste from landfill, not packaging disposal in isolation. Compostable packaging serves as a practical vehicle to support that goal by allowing food scraps and packaging to move together into a single, well-managed organics stream.

When packaging helps simplify sorting, reduce confusion, and increase overall food-waste capture, it can meaningfully improve composting outcomes — even if the packaging itself is not the primary driver of environmental benefit. In tightly controlled, food-heavy systems, compostables can therefore play a supporting role in achieving higher rates of organics diversion.

Verified Access to Commercial Composting

Compostable packaging may also be viable when brands can verify access to commercial composting facilities for both their operations and their customers.

This means confirming not only that facilities exist, but that they accept packaging, and that customers can realistically use them at scale — not just in theory. In these cases, compostable packaging is most effective when it is designed to support next-generation, regenerative material inputs and kept as simple as possible to reduce contamination risk.

Limiting additional components, such as inks, adhesives, coatings, and labels, helps ensure materials are more likely to be accepted and processed correctly.

This level of alignment between material choice, design simplicity, and recovery infrastructure is rare — particularly for distributed e-commerce audiences — which is why many brands ultimately find greater consistency with recyclable packaging systems designed for existing recovery pathways.

When these conditions are genuinely met, compostable packaging can serve a defined purpose. For most e-commerce shipping applications, however, very few brands operate within these constraints, making compostables an impractical sustainability solution in practice.

For the vast majority of direct-to-consumer brands, recyclable packaging made with high post-consumer waste (PCW) content offers clearer, more reliable sustainability benefits than compostable alternatives.

These packaging formats align with existing recovery infrastructure, are more likely to be disposed of correctly by customers, and pose a lower risk of contaminating recycling streams. They also deliver better durability and product protection, which reduces damage and reships, an often overlooked driver of environmental impact.

Taken together, these factors typically result in a lower overall carbon footprint and more credible sustainability outcomes.

EcoEnclose’s recommended options for most e-commerce shipping applications include:

• Paper Mailers

• Padded Mailers 

• Shipping Boxes
  

These solutions support real circularity, grounded in how packaging is actually recovered today, not theoretical circularity that depends on ideal conditions.

For most eCommerce applications, EcoEnclose does not recommend compostable packaging because it rarely delivers the sustainability outcomes brands expect.

Limited access to composting infrastructure, high contamination rates, inconsistent real-world breakdown, and performance limitations often mean compostable packaging is landfilled or causes downstream challenges rather than reducing environmental impact.

When recyclable packaging made with high post-consumer waste already exists and performs better across lifecycle metrics, it typically offers a clearer and more reliable sustainability benefit.

At the same time, EcoEnclose recognizes that the future of sustainable packaging depends on better material inputs — not just better disposal claims. That’s why we have invested in packaging made from novel, regenerative materials, including seaweed-based films, to help accelerate market adoption of inputs we believe are essential to the next generation of packaging.

These materials are fundamentally different from conventional compostables because their environmental advantage begins at the source, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and extractive agricultural systems.

Today, compostability is often the only non-landfill end-of-life option available for emerging materials that have not yet reached the scale required for recycling infrastructure or material recovery markets. In these cases, compostability serves as a bridge — enabling innovation while better recovery systems develop. EcoEnclose’s seaweed-based packaging is designed for both home and industrial composting, with material and design choices intentionally made to reduce contamination risk.

To support this goal, these packages feature minimal printing, and we encourage the use of Algae Ink™ to help protect composting streams and preserve compost quality. The focus is not on labeling packaging as compostable, but on responsibly advancing materials that move the industry beyond extractive inputs, while being honest about how those materials can be handled today.

This approach reflects EcoEnclose’s broader sustainability philosophy: prioritize environmental integrity, material innovation, and real-world recovery over marketing-driven claims. Compostability can play a role — but only when it is aligned with better inputs, thoughtful design, and realistic end-of-life pathways.

Compostable packaging may sound like the most eco-friendly choice, but for most eCommerce brands, it rarely delivers the outcomes sustainability requires.

Without reliable composting infrastructure, sufficient durability, or proven lifecycle benefits, compostable materials often introduce new challenges rather than solving existing ones.

The most sustainable packaging is the option that consistently protects the product, fits within recovery systems that customers can actually access, and delivers measurable environmental benefit. In practice, that usually means choosing recycled, recyclable packaging designed for real-world circularity rather than compostables.

→ Got sustainable packaging questions? We've got answers.