Packaging sustainability conversations often begin with recycled content, renewable materials, energy use, recyclability and waste. Those are important parts of the equation. But every roll of paperboard, bale of recovered fiber, load of pulp and pallet of finished packaging still has to move through a supply chain.
For companies measuring Scope 3 emissions, that transportation can matter. Freight may appear upstream as raw materials and inputs move toward a mill, converter or packaging plant, and downstream as paper, corrugated products and finished packaging move toward customers.
As we explain in our broader guide to Scope 3 transportation emissions and freight rail , the point is not to assume that every truck lane should become a rail lane. It is to understand how the freight moves today and whether any part of that transportation deserves another look.
Packaging has a transportation footprint too
Packaging supply chains can involve a surprisingly wide range of freight. Wood and recovered fiber move toward mills. Pulp and paper move into manufacturing. Containerboard and paperboard move to converters. Printed, folded and corrugated products then move toward warehouses, manufacturers, retailers and other customers.
Upstream: wood, recovered fiber, pulp, chemicals and other manufacturing inputs.
Midstream: paper rolls, linerboard, containerboard, paperboard and sheet products moving between mills and converting plants.
Downstream: corrugated products, cartons, packaging materials and other finished products moving toward customers and distribution points.
The greenhouse-gas accounting treatment depends on the transaction and the reporting company's boundaries, but this is not merely theoretical. Packaging companies are already reporting transportation within their Scope 3 inventories.
Packaging Corporation of America explicitly includes freight in Scope 3.
Packaging Corporation of America's 2025 Responsibility Report identifies upstream transportation of wood and downstream transportation of paper and corrugated products within its Scope 3 inventory.
That is a useful example because it connects an abstract emissions category to familiar packaging-industry movements: raw material moving in and paper or corrugated product moving out.
Source: Packaging Corporation of America — 2025 Responsibility Report
Why packaging freight can be worth examining
Transportation becomes particularly interesting when volume and distance repeat. One truckload may not change a supply-chain strategy. Hundreds or thousands of similar movements over the course of a year can create a different discussion.
Parts of the paper and packaging supply chain have several characteristics that can make a freight lane worth reviewing:
- Meaningful weight. Paper rolls, pulp, recovered fiber and containerboard can create substantial annual tonnage.
- Repeat movements. Mills, converters and manufacturers often receive or ship similar materials on recurring lanes.
- Predictable origins and destinations. Regular supplier, mill, warehouse and customer relationships make a lane easier to evaluate.
- Long-haul transportation. When the line-haul portion is significant, transportation mode deserves more attention.
- Inventory flexibility. Some operations can receive product at railcar scale and hold inventory differently than an all-truck supply chain.
None of those characteristics automatically makes rail the right answer. They simply make the lane worth asking questions about.
Not every packaging product has the same rail profile
This is where a generic statement such as “packaging should move by rail” falls apart.
A heavy paper roll moving hundreds of miles to a converter has a very different transportation profile from lightweight finished corrugated boxes moving a short distance to a customer. The first may be weight-driven and repetitive. The second may cube out before it weighs out, require frequent delivery or move efficiently inside an established regional truck network.
Pulp, recovered fiber, roll stock, sheet products and finished packaging also have different equipment and handling requirements. Moisture protection, product damage, loading pattern, warehouse access, door configuration, forklifts, clamp trucks and storage can all affect whether a rail option is practical.
LA&L's Paper, Pulp & Packaging freight page looks more closely at the types of paper and packaging freight that can move by rail and the operational questions that come with those movements.
That distinction is important for Scope 3 as well. The goal should not be to force a lower-emission transportation mode into a lane that does not work. The goal should be to identify the movements where cost, service, handling, capacity and transportation efficiency can be evaluated together.
What are packaging companies themselves doing?
Public sustainability reporting provides some useful signals about where the industry is heading.
Rochester-based Diamond Packaging reports an absolute Scope 3 reduction target and says it has begun incorporating more specific activity-based information into its calculations. In its reporting, Diamond describes working with a key supplier to obtain primary product and transportation data and identifies supplier engagement, sustainable procurement and supply-chain efficiency and logistics improvements as part of its Scope 3 work.
That local example is especially relevant to the Rochester manufacturing market. Better Scope 3 reporting depends on better information about what is actually happening in the supply chain, and transportation teams already work with much of that underlying activity data: origins, destinations, freight mode, tonnage, shipment frequency and routes.
Some packaging companies are going beyond measurement.
Smurfit Westrock identifies transportation as part of its Scope 3 strategy, including modal shift, operational efficiency and fuel efficiency. Its published transition plan also describes a customer example in Switzerland where freight was shifted from road to rail.
Smurfit Westrock reports that the change reduced transport emissions by approximately 600 tonnes of CO2 for that customer site.
That number should not be applied to other companies or freight lanes. It is a company-specific example. What it demonstrates is more useful: a packaging company can evaluate transportation mode as an actual supply-chain variable rather than treating freight emissions as a fixed outcome.
Rail and truck should be evaluated together
Packaging freight is another good example of why the useful conversation is rarely “rail versus truck.”
Trucks provide local flexibility, frequent service and door-to-door access. Rail can provide long-haul capacity and fuel efficiency for suitable heavy, repeatable freight. Many supply chains may use both.
A paperboard movement, for example, might travel most of the distance by rail and then use a truck for the final local delivery. Other freight may remain on trucks from origin to destination because the lane, volume, handling or service requirements make that the better operating choice.
The important part is that the choice is evaluated with real freight data rather than assumed from habit.
No siding at the packaging plant?
Direct rail access is not required for every potential rail movement. Transloading allows freight to move between railcar and truck at a rail-served location. Rail can handle the longer-haul movement while a truck completes the local connection.
For packaging manufacturers, converters or warehouses in the greater Rochester and Western New York market, that means an off-rail facility may still have a rail option worth examining. The practical answer depends on the commodity, handling requirements, truck radius, storage, lane and annual volume.
Companies also evaluating a future expansion or new location can use LA&L's development and TrackSiteIQ resources to explore rail-served and rail-accessible industrial sites.
Start with the freight, not the sustainability claim
A Scope 3 project does not need to begin with a complex network model. A transportation team can start with one real movement and determine whether it deserves a closer review.
For a paper or packaging lane, start with:
- Product: paper roll, containerboard, paperboard, pulp, recovered fiber, finished packaging or another material.
- Origin: where the material begins its current freight movement.
- Destination: mill, converter, warehouse, plant or customer location.
- Annual volume: tons, truckloads or other known shipment volume.
- Current freight profile: truck payload, frequency and approximate route distance.
- Handling requirements: equipment, warehouse access, moisture protection, storage and service needs.
From there, the transportation questions become more useful. Is either end directly rail served? Is a transload facility practical? What railcar would the product require? What would the actual rail routing look like? How much local trucking would remain? Does the resulting service and inventory plan work for the business?
Some lanes will quickly fall out of consideration. That is useful information. Others may deserve a more detailed cost, service and emissions comparison. Companies that are new to rail can also use LA&L's Getting Started with Rail guide to understand the practical steps involved.
The package isn't the entire supply chain
Packaging companies have spent years improving materials, reducing waste, increasing recycled content and evaluating the environmental characteristics of the package itself.
Scope 3 creates a reason to widen the view.
Paperboard still has to reach the converter. Pulp and recovered fiber still have to reach the mill. Finished products still have to reach customers. Every one of those movements involves transportation decisions.
For heavy, repeatable freight moving meaningful distances, how the product moves deserves to be part of the packaging sustainability conversation.
Rail will not fit every movement. But a lane that has moved by truck for years should not be excluded from consideration simply because nobody has asked the question recently.
For the broader framework, read Scope 3 Transportation Emissions: Where Freight Rail Fits .
Have a paper or packaging freight lane worth looking at?
Share the product, origin, destination and approximate annual volume. LA&L can help determine whether direct rail or transloading deserves a closer transportation review.
Discuss a Freight LaneSources & Further Reading
- Packaging Corporation of America — 2025 Responsibility Report
- Diamond Packaging — Carbon Neutral / Scope 3 Reporting
- Smurfit Westrock — Net Zero Transition Plan
- GHG Protocol — Scope 3 Calculation Guidance
- Federal Railroad Administration — Freight Rail Overview
Scope 3 accounting depends on a company's reporting boundaries, transportation arrangements, available activity data and selected accounting methodology. Freight routing, equipment, service, handling, rail access and transload feasibility require project-specific review. Company examples cited above are included as public industry examples and do not imply endorsement of LA&L or a specific rail opportunity. This article is for general freight transportation and educational purposes and is not greenhouse-gas accounting, regulatory or legal advice.
