A study released by PPAI on 4 February 2026 is the one-page answer to that meeting. It does not say merch is green. It does not say your catalogue is eight times cleaner than a banner ad. It says something more useful: when you compare advertising channels on carbon per *memorised* impression, branded merchandise sits among the lowest-carbon options, and it can generate up to eight times less carbon than digital.
That last number is a media-channel finding. It is not a product claim. If a client hears “this hoodie is eight times greener than Facebook”, the brief has already failed.
What was measured
The work is the Promotional Product CO₂ Project. It was conducted by 51toCarbonZero and jointly commissioned by the European Associations Cooperation (EAC), Promotional Products Association International (PPAI) and the Advertising Specialty Institute (ASI).
Researchers compared the full life-cycle carbon of branded merchandise with digital, television, radio, print and out-of-home advertising in the US and Europe. They used three metrics: average emissions per memorised impression, per campaign, and per euro or dollar spent.
A memorised impression is the one that sticks. Not a scroll. A brand someone can actually recall.
PPAI’s 4 February release puts the headline this way: promotional products generate up to eight times less carbon impact per memorised impression than digital advertising, including social media and online display ads. Across combined US and European markets, branded merchandise ranks second only to out-of-home. In the US, merch and out-of-home are level.
The published comparison report gives the combined figures, in grams of CO₂e per memorised impression: out-of-home 0.54; merchandising 0.56; digital 4.57; radio 4.66; TV 7.09; print 22.18. Europe is similar: merch 0.42 against digital 3.30. The US is merch 0.70 against digital 5.84, level with out-of-home.
Per campaign, merch again sits second only to out-of-home in both markets. Per dollar in the US it is mid-table, on a par with digital. So the “eight times” line lives on one metric: carbon per memorised impression versus digital. It is not a licence to flatten the whole study into a slogan.
How they got there
Promotional-product numbers came from a full calendar year of sales at two large distributors, one in the US and one in Europe. Those orders were run through an industry-specific cradle-to-grave carbon tracking tool. The methodology was certified by Bureau Veritas as being in accordance with ISO 14067 principles.
The other five channels were built from existing publications: typical campaign scale, spend, impressions, carbon intensity and memorisation rates.
That split matters. You must say it out loud.
The report’s own limitations are blunt. Primary data for merch. Industry averages for everyone else. Limited independent third-party studies. A risk of bias in figures that favour the channel a publication is promoting. Carbon only — not the full environmental impact of each medium. And this: the study does not suggest merchandise has no impact. All advertising generates emissions.
PPAI reports that the researchers framed the results as comparative and directional, not product-level carbon claims, and a foundation for more work.
What you can say in the room
Elizabeth Wimbush, CAS, director of sustainability and responsibility at PPAI:
“Branded merchandise is often underestimated in sustainability conversations because it’s tangible. This research challenges assumptions by showing that when products are designed to be useful, durable, and kept over time, they can deliver exceptional brand impact with comparatively low carbon emissions. It gives brands credible data to make smarter, more responsible marketing decisions.”
That “when” is the brief. Useful. Durable. Kept. Junk still fails.
Timothy M. Andrews, president and chief executive officer of ASI:
“This research gives the promo industry something it has long needed – credible data that puts sustainability claims into real context. By using actual sales data from large U.S. and European distributors and established carbon tracking tools, the study shows how promo products compare to other ways brands advertise, based on measurable impact rather than assumptions.”
Phil Goodman, CEO of the BPMA, which is a member of the EAC, welcomed the study in Merch Magazine:
“The findings reinforce the immense power of branded merchandise from both a sustainability and effectiveness perspective, and will be a useful tool for distributors to open new conversations with their clients and prospects.”
51toCarbonZero add a point merchandisers already know in their bones. Unlike broadcast or digital, promotional products sit in a supply chain you can actually change: materials, production, logistics, end of life.
How to use it this quarter
Take the study into the meeting. Do not take a slogan.
- Ask which metric the client cares about. Per memorised impression is where merch is strongest. Per dollar in the US it is not a walkover.
- Say the eight-times line only as a channel comparison with digital, on memorised impressions, with the methodology in the same breath.
- Then talk about the product on the table. If it will not be kept, the study is not on your side.
The object is not the problem. The unused object is.
Sources
Rate this article
No ratings yet.
Pass this on
Send the piece to a colleague, or copy the link.