This blog is inspired by an excellent article in the Spring 2025 issue of “Marketor”, the Worshipful Company of Marketors’ quarterly magazine about a review of the pros and cons of print or digital distribution.
The case for print is built on mitigations that only FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified paper is used and the ink is bio-ink, not petroleum-based. And the printer subscribes to an offsetting scheme funding sustainable forests.
Digital may appear to have inherently lower emissions, with no production or transport emissions, but it is not a zero-emission solution. Data centres consume energy, and every file opened and stored adds to that.
The article concludes that “Print wins (this time)”, subtly acknowledging that the debate continues as we increase our understanding of the full gamut of GHG emissions associated with both alternatives.
In “How Bad are Bananas: the Carbon Footprint of Everything”, Mike Berners-Lee helpfully lives up to his sub-title. He cites the carbon footprint of the Guardian Weekly (a 64-page magazine) at 190g if recycled (more than double that if sent to landfill). He calculates that reading the same content from a smartphone would consume about 1g per minute.
So, if a smaller, environmentally printed Company magazine read by responsible recycling members had an all-in carbon footprint of, say, 120g, the average member would have to spend more than two hours online reading the magazine for the printed version to out-perform. This may be what editors might expect all members to do, but if members only skim-read it quite quickly in either format, the gap widens in favour of digital.
But respect for the non-digitally-enabled, and knowing what members want, are critical factors factors too.
So, if looking solely through the lens of GHG emissions, this may remain a nuanced call to make. An informed choice would benefit from having more evidence across all facets.
It would make an excellent topic for deeper research!
Gordon Masterton,
Past Master Engineer, LCAG Engagement & Recruitment lead
[Feature image Anne LaBastille, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
