For several years now, “going paperless” has been positioned as the gold standard of sustainability. Organisations across the board - from retail to banking, hospitality to higher education - have been cutting paper use with the core message of causing less harm to the environment.
But is this really the case? Is a paperless operation really what’s best for the planet, and the people your company engages with? In this blog, we explore the true impact - on people and planet - of going paperless.
Is Digital Really More Sustainable Than Print?
A complex question that requires a complex answer, and like all complex answers: it depends.
The assumption that digital is inherently greener can largely be pinned on its (in)visibility. By that we mean, because printed materials are physical things that transcend beyond the screen to reach us in the real world, it can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that they’re more resource-heavy than their on-screen counterparts.
As a result, and by contrast, digital content appears clean, because we’re much less likely to consider the infrastructure that exists behind it.
But to pull back a bit of the curtain, research conducted by Heidelberg reminds us that even a single online search consumes energy — around 0.3 watt-hours per query, to be exact, which quickly scales given that, as of February 2026, Google processes around 16.4 billion searches every day (189,815 every second).
Given this little nugget of information, it isn’t difficult to see why the digital sector is responsible for around 4% of greenhouse gas emissions globally - more than the entire aviation industry - meanwhile paper, pulp and print account for just 0.8%.
The Hidden Environmental Cost of Digital Media
When we take a closer look at the infrastructure powering digital media, and the devices used to engage with it, we soon realise it might not be so “green” compared to print. Data centres, networks, and electronic devices all contribute to global emissions.
According to recent research, data centres alone account for 1.5% of global electricity consumption, while estimates indicate that the digital ecosystem contributes over 1.7 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually.
Then there’s e-waste. The United Nation’s fourth Global E-Waste Monitor (GEM) shows that a record 62 million tonnes of e-waste was produced in 2022; up by 82% from 2010 and on track to rise another 32% to 82 million tonnes in 2030. To put this into perspective, the 62 million tonnes generated in 2022 would fill 1.55 million 40-tonne trucks, which would be enough to form a bumper-to-bumper line circling the equator.
Meanwhile, less than one quarter (22.3%) of the year’s e-waste was recorded as having been properly collected and recycled, leaving $62 billion worth of recoverable natural resources unaccounted for. And the picture isn’t much better over the pond: in Europe, reports from the same year show that just 46% of the continent’s e-waste was collected for recycling (compared with 79% of paper).
How Does Commercial Printing Impact the Environment?
While we’re all being pushed to “go paperless” to protect the planet, the stats highlight some significant shortfalls when it comes to digital being fully “green”.
Shedding light onto the true environmental impact of digital media is important, but it’s equally important to acknowledge that commercial printing has evolved, and may not be the drain on resources that we’ve always been told it is.
Paper sourcing, for instance, is far more sustainable that it gets credit for. The first big win is that paper is a fully renewable raw material, and with organisations like the Forest Stewardship Council stamping out irresponsible paper sourcing, most commercial printers now use paper from responsibly managed forests, ensuring it supports a circular economy.
The first big win is that paper is a fully renewable raw material. And in Europe, where almost all primary forests are protected, the vast majority of paper (over 90%) comes from responsibly managed forests where the cycle that sees trees planted and turned into paper is carefully controlled. The best way to figure out if a printer is using sustainably-sourced paper? Check for certification from environmental bodies, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
If deforestation is currently a mark in the cons column for commercial print, it needn’t be. According to Two Sides:
Forests cover 40% of the European territory and are growing in both area and volume. Currently, the total volume is approximately 28 billion m³, which is growing by around 612 million m³ every year. This is a net annual growth of more than 2% once the volume of harvested forests has been deducted.
… Another big win for print!
Add to this the fact that printing itself has also become more efficient, thanks to advances and investment into modern printing technologies, with tech such as LED UV print reducing energy consumption by between 50%-85% compared to traditional curing systems.
To summarise, while print does have a carbon footprint, it’s becoming easier to measure and optimise processes to minimise its impact. Programmes such as the World Land Trust’s Carbon Balanced Print initiative help to make that a reality.
Print vs. Digital: Which Has the Lower Carbon Footprint?
Comparing the carbon footprints of print vs. digital channels rarely provides a fixed answer; it pretty much always depends on usage.
One thing to bear in mind is that print has a defined lifecycle. Once produced, its environmental impact is largely complete, aside from the question of whether it ends up in general waste or the recycling bin — and the data shows that most of the time, it’s the latter. Whilst yes, print consumes resources and energy during production, this only needs to happen once, and those materials can then be used multiple times.
Digital, by contrast, has a recurring footprint tied to usage and storage, with energy demands being made each time data is accessed. Not only this, but the devices we use to engage with digital content - smartphones, ereaders, computers and laptops - all consume energy during both production and operation, and that energy isn’t always coming from sustainable sources.
On top of it all, global data on the recycling of electronic waste paints a pretty bleak picture, with the amount of e-waste being produced set to rise by 2.6 million tonnes each year to 2030. So it raises the question: How much energy and how many raw materials can be saved or recovered through e-waste recycling? Or, perhaps more importantly, what percentage of electronic items are consumers intending/attempting to recycle in the first place?
The carbon impact of print vs. digital needs to be considered beyond the recycling point of view. Effectiveness should likewise play a role in shaping our understanding of the true impact of both — on people, and on the planet.
Let’s draw this comparison using two outreach methods that are common to a lot of marketing campaigns: printed direct mail vs. email. Emails might appear to have minimal environmental impact, at least on paper, but it’s important to note that on average, every email sent generates around 10 grams of CO2 emissions.
If emailing isn’t your thing, this might not seem like such a big number, but consider the extent of that impact when companies across the globe are sending daily, weekly, or monthly e-shots to databases with thousands of contacts…
Now consider how often those mailing lists are reviewed and updated to remove unengaged contacts… Rarely, at best. So we’re no longer dealing with the average person sending 30-40 emails a day, which are read and responded to; we’re looking at huge mailing lists filled with hundreds, maybe even thousands, of obsolete contacts, each of whom is receiving emails on a regular basis, never to be opened, engaged with, or responded to. With this in mind, those 10 grams of CO2 per email don’t seem so small.
The carbon advantages of email start to disappear quickly as mailing lists grow limitlessly, emails lack targeted messaging, and more and more people are refining their spam filters in an effort to combat screen fatigue.
The grass is certainly a little bit greener on the print side of the fence. Performance-wise, print leaves digital in the dust with average open rates of 60% vs. email’s 21.5%, and over 40% of recipients actively reading and engaging with the content. Response rates are higher with direct mail too, along with greater brand retention and trust amongst off-screen readers, showing the various advantages of print marketing aside from sustainability.
What’s the Biggest Sustainability Advantage of Print?
Finally, a question that’s simple to answer! One of print’s strongest qualities that puts a great big tick in the pros column is that it’s set up to support a circular economy. That’s because paper is…
- Made from renewable resources
- Recyclable multiple times
- Biodegradable at end-of-life
And the biggest bonus? It’s part of a closed-loop system. Fibres are reused, waste is minimised, and materials are kept in circulation for as long as possible; a direct contrast to the linear chain of extract-manufacture-dispose of many digital technologies.
This helps to rewrite the narrative that using paper is inherently wasteful, because it isn’t. In fact, it’s one of the most recycled and renewable materials available (and the data shared above backs this up).
With this in mind, now might be the best time to question whether “going paperless” is truly a step in the right direction for most organisations. Not only are consumers more likely to establish trust in your brand when engaging with offline materials, but it’s also important to remember that favouring digital over print doesn’t automatically give you a sustainability win. In most cases, it just shifts the environmental burden elsewhere — into data centres, devices, and high-consumption infrastructure.
A Smarter, More Sustainable Marketing Approach
So, where does all this leave us? Not exactly with a clear winner, but perhaps with a clearer perspective.
Print and digital aren’t opposites, and they shouldn’t be treated as such. They’re tools — and like any tools, their sustainability ultimately depends on how they’re used.
Truly effective (and sustainable) marketing strategies leverage the best of both:
- Print for impact, longevity, and improved engagement
- Digital for speed, flexibility, and scale
Sustainability isn’t defined by whether something comes through the letterbox or pops up as a notification. It’s defined by the systems that are in place to bring that message into being, the resources that are consumed, and the way that channel is used.
When it comes to choosing between print and digital, the goal isn’t to eliminate one in favour of the other. It’s to reduce waste, improve efficiency, and make better decisions that make sense for your business, your audiences, and your carbon footprint.
FAQs
Is print more sustainable than digital?
It really depends on how each is used. While digital campaigns may not use up physical materials to run, they do rely on energy-intensive data centres and electronic devices. Studies have shown that in some scenarios - particularly in high-engagement campaigns - print can have a lower overall carbon footprint than digital alternatives.
Which has a bigger carbon footprint: print or digital?
Unfortunately, the answer is rarely clear-cut. Print has a one-time production footprint, while digital content generates emissions continuously through storage, access, and data transfer. The overall impact depends on scale, usage, and effectiveness.
Is paper bad for the environment?
Not necessarily. Most commercial paper in Europe comes from responsibly managed forests, where trees are replanted. Paper is also renewable, recyclable, and biodegradable, making it part of a circular economy.
Are emails and digital marketing environmentally friendly?
Emails may seem low-impact, but each one generates around 10 grams of CO2 emissions. When sent at scale, their environmental impact can add up quickly.
What is the most sustainable marketing approach?
The most sustainable marketing approach is to use both print and digital strategically. Print can be effective for high-impact, long-lasting communication, while digital works well for fast, flexible messaging. The key is reducing waste and maximising effectiveness across both channels.