Your sample cart is empty
What are the benefits of pouches?
Here’s an overview of the key benefits of pouches (stand-up pouches / flexible packaging), especially relevant for both food and non-food applications:
1. Space & weight efficiency
- Pouches are lightweight and take up little space, both in transport and storage.
- Less weight = lower shipping costs and reduced CO₂ emissions.
2. Flexibility in design and size
- Available in many formats: stand-up, flat-bottom, gusseted, with or without zipper.
- Adapt the size and opening to your product (powders, coffee, snacks, non-food, etc.).
3. Consumer-friendly
- Reclosable options (zipper or resealable) improve convenience.
- Transparent windows show the product inside, building trust at the point of purchase.
4. Product protection
- Barrier properties protect against moisture, oxygen, light, or odors.
- Extended shelf life without the need for bulky extra packaging.
5. Marketing & branding
- Large printable surfaces for eye-catching designs.
- Make your brand stand out on store shelves, webshops, or trade fairs.
6. Sustainability
- Mono-material and recyclable options support circularity.
- Uses less material compared to traditional boxes, bottles, or jars.
7. Cost savings
- More cost-effective than rigid packaging.
- Efficient in transport: more pouches per pallet, less storage space needed.
How do they compare?
Below you’ll find a decision table that compares pouches with traditional packaging such as cans, jars, cartons, and rigid plastics. The focus is on B2B food and non-food applications, with clear advantages (+) and disadvantages (–).
Feature / Property | Pouch (plastic film) | Can / Metal | Jar / Glass | Box / Cardboard | Rigid Plastic |
Weight | + Very light | – Heavy | – Heavy | + Light | ± Medium |
Transport & storage | + Compact, flexible | – Space-intensive | – Fragile, space-consuming | + Stackable, light | ± Stackable |
Product protection | + Good against moisture, air | + Excellent for long shelf life | + Good for shelf life | – Limited barrier | + Good, not always airtight |
Marketing & branding | + Large print area | – Limited print area | + Medium | + Large print area | + Medium to large |
User-friendliness | + Reusable, light | – Difficult to open/close | + Reusable, heavy | + Easy to open | + Reusable, can be heavy |
Sustainability / recycling | + Mono-materials possible | + Recyclable metal | + Recyclable glass | + Recyclable cardboard | – Often difficult to recycle |
Production costs | + Low in larger volumes | – Expensive | – Expensive | + Very low | ± Medium |
Flexibility in shape / size | + Very flexible | – Rigid shapes | – Rigid shapes | ± Limited | – Rigid shapes |
Risk of breakage / leakage | ± Depends on material | + Unbreakable | – Breakable | – Can tear | + Unbreakable |
Energy consumption production (raw material) | Low – 1–2 MJ/kg | High – 15–20 MJ/kg | High – 10–15 MJ/kg | Low – 0.5–1 MJ/kg | Medium – 3–5 MJ/kg |
Energy consumption production (processing) | Low – 1–2 MJ/kg | High – 5 MJ/kg | High – 5 MJ/kg | Medium – 2–5 MJ/kg | Medium – 2–5 MJ/kg |
CO₂ emissions (raw material) | Low – 0.1–0.25 kg CO₂/kg | High – 1.5–2.5 kg CO₂/kg | High – 1–2 kg CO₂/kg | Medium – 0.25–0.75 kg CO₂/kg | Medium – 0.25–0.75 kg CO₂/kg |
CO₂ emissions (processing / manufacturing) | Low – 0.1–0.25 kg CO₂/kg | Medium – 0.5 kg CO₂/kg | Medium – 0.5 kg CO₂/kg | Low – 0.1–0.25 kg CO₂/kg | Medium – 0.25–0.75 kg CO₂/kg |
Water consumption (raw material) | Low – 0.5–1.5 L/kg | High – 10–20 L/kg | High – 7–15 L/kg | High – 10–20 L/kg | Medium – 2–5 L/kg |
Water consumption (processing / manufacturing) | Low – 0.5–1.5 L/kg | High – 5 L/kg | High – 3–5 L/kg | Low – 0.5–3 L/kg | Medium – 3–5 L/kg |
1. Raw material production – CO₂, energy, and water needed to produce the base material (PE, PP, PET, glass, metal, cardboard).
2. Manufacturing / processing – CO₂, energy, and water needed to convert the raw material into the final packaging product (pouch, jar, can, carton).
- For pouches: raw material = plastic film (PE/PP); processing = cutting, sealing, printing.
- For glass and cans: raw material = glass or aluminum; processing = forming jars/cans, possibly coating or printing.
- For cardboard: raw material = paper/board; processing = folding and printing boxes.
- For rigid plastic: raw material = PE/PET/PP; processing = injection molding or extrusion.
In short:
- Pouches score highest on weight, flexibility, transport, marketing, and reusability.
- Cans and jars offer strong protection and long shelf life, but are heavy and costly.
- Cartons/boxes are cheap and light, but provide limited protection.
- Rigid plastics sit somewhere in between, but can be difficult to recycle.
- Pouches clearly win when it comes to energy, CO₂, and water efficiency, mainly due to their low weight and reduced material use.
- Cans and glass consume a lot of energy and water due to melting, shaping, and processing.
- Cardboard is cheap and eco-friendly in production, but less protective.
- Rigid plastics are average in terms of energy and water use, and recycling is more challenging compared to mono-materials.
Average energy, CO₂, and water consumption during recycling
Material | Explanation |
Pouch (plastic film, mono-PE/PP) | Plastic film requires separation, washing, shredding and extrusion. Mono-materials are easier than multi-layer, but film is light and thin, which means a lot of energy per tonne is needed. |
Can / Metal (aluminium, steel) | Metal recycling is energy-intensive, especially melting. Aluminium is highly energy-efficient in recycling compared to primary production, but steel also requires cleaning and sorting. |
Jar / Glass | Glass is relatively easy to recycle (washing, melting). Low CO₂ emissions, but melting requires energy. Reuse of jars (deposit/return) strongly reduces impact. |
Box / Cardboard | Cardboard recycling requires separation, washing and pulping. Energy use is low, but water use is high due to pulp water and cleaning of ink/contaminants. |
Rigid Plastic (PE, PP, PET) | Rigid plastic can be mechanically recycled, but sorting and cleaning require extra energy and water. PET bottles are relatively efficient, PE/PP more difficult due to contamination or additives. |
Curious to learn more about pouches?
Feel free to get in touch with us. We’ll be happy to help you find the best packaging solution for your product!