Recyclable PET and BiB packaging: why they beat glass for the planet

"Why don't you use glass?"
It's probably one of the most common questions we receive. And it's a fair one. For years we have been taught that glass is automatically more ecological than plastic. But when we seriously studied the real environmental impact of our packaging, we found something uncomfortable: most data did not point to glass as the best solution.
## The real comparison
The comparison is not "infinitely reusable glass vs disposable plastic". In domestic cosmetics, it is: a single-use glass bottle vs a recyclable PET bottle. And the results shift considerably.
## The cost of making a glass bottle
Glass furnaces run at 1,500–2,000°C and cannot be switched off for 10–20 years. Around 80% of that energy still comes from natural gas. On top of that, making glass generates CO₂ through unavoidable chemical reactions: limestone (CaCO₃) → CaO + CO₂. These emissions happen even with renewable electricity.
Per bottle: between 60 and 160 grams of CO₂ in manufacturing alone (ACerS, 2023). A glass bottle weighs six to eight times more than an equivalent PET bottle — multiplying transport emissions.
## What lifecycle studies say
Franklin Associates / NAPCOR (2023): PET bottles generate less greenhouse gas emissions, less energy consumption, less water use and less solid waste than equivalent glass bottles.
Science Insights (2026): glass-based systems generated 790–1,137 kg CO₂-eq per 1,000 litres of product. Recycled PET systems: 459–634 kg. A 30–60% reduction.
## BiB 5L: lowest plastic of all
Our BiB format uses approximately 89% less plastic than an equivalent rigid container. A BioIntelligence study for Smurfit Kappa found the BiB had a carbon footprint five times lower than an equivalent glass bottle. One lorry loaded with BiB replaces approximately seven lorries of glass bottles (Alfa Laval).
The honest summary: glass wins where real return/refill systems exist. In domestic cosmetics without that infrastructure, recyclable PET and BiB win — clearly.



