We make wooden packaging, so treat what follows accordingly — but this comparison is more interesting than the marketing on either side suggests. Plastic genuinely wins on some points. Several of the arguments made against wood are, on the evidence, false. And the most-quoted figures in this debate come from studies funded by whichever industry they favour.
Weight — a smaller difference than claimed
An EPAL Euro pallet is about 25 kg. Plastic Euro-format pallets run from about 12.5 kg for lightweight nestable models to 18–19.5 kg for heavy-duty and hygienic grades, and a steel-reinforced plastic pallet can reach 26 kg — heavier than wood.
So the widely repeated "plastic is 30–35% lighter" holds only for lightweight nestable pallets. Compare like for like on load rating and the saving is nearer 22–28%, and disappears entirely at the reinforced end of the range. Weight matters most in air freight, where pallet tare counts toward chargeable weight; for road and sea it rarely decides anything.
Cost — the honest answer is a range
New EPAL Euro pallets were quoted at roughly €21–29 in Germany in early 2026, with used pallets around €11–13 for class A down to €7–9 for class C. Plastic Euro pallets vary enormously: lightweight nestable models approach parity with new wood at volume, while rackable and hygienic grades list far higher — a single-unit list price above €100 is not unusual.
A defensible summary: lightweight plastic is roughly comparable to new wood; rackable or heavy-duty plastic costs several times more. Trade association claims that timber is "up to six times cheaper" are undated advocacy with no stated method, and we would not rely on them.
The real cost question is cost per trip, not purchase price — which brings in lifespan and loss rate, and those depend far more on your logistics than on the material.
Lifespan and repair
A peer-reviewed review of sixteen life-cycle studies found wooden pallets mostly modelled at 5–30 cycles, occasionally up to 90, with a ten-year service life assumed in most studies. Plastic pallets were modelled at 50–100 cycles. Those are modelling assumptions rather than measured fleet data, and the review itself notes that lifetime was "seldom stated" in the underlying studies.
Where wood has a clear structural advantage is repairability. A wooden pallet is repaired board by board, and the scale of this is easy to underestimate: European manufacturers repaired 197.5 million pallets in 2019, up 25% on three years earlier. In France, the Netherlands and the UK, pallet repairs equal or exceed new pallet production. A plastic pallet cannot be repaired board by board — at end of life it is ground to flake and remoulded, which is genuine recycling but not the same as a five-minute repair that returns the asset to service.
Hygiene — genuinely contested
This is where you should be most sceptical of everyone, including us.
Testing commissioned by a plastic pallet pooling company found a substantial proportion of wooden pallets carrying Salmonella, E. coli or Listeria, and no pathogens on plastic. The sampling targeted pallets stored outdoors at market locations — the population most likely to be contaminated — and the wooden pallet association disputed the claims.
Meanwhile a German Institute for Food Technology field study across fourteen food companies, with roughly 15,000 measurements, found bacterial counts on commercial wooden pallets averaging 15% lower than on plastic, and about half that of plastic on pine-heartwood pallets. Mechanism studies found E. coli died fastest on pine, with the reduction happening within the wood rather than just at the surface, and survival longer on plastic than on wood.
The honest synthesis: wood's antibacterial effect, particularly in pine, is real and peer-reviewed — but it is conditional on the wood being dry. In wet or humid conditions the advantage disappears. Plastic's advantage is cleanability, which degrades as surfaces scratch and become cavernous with use. Both bodies of evidence are twenty years old and both have industry proximity.
Two practical points are not disputed. Both sides agree wood must be kept below 20% moisture content to prevent mould and bacterial survival. And there is no EU-level prohibition on wooden pallets in food — the traditional European species have been permitted in contact with all foodstuffs since 2012. Where wood is excluded from food or pharmaceutical operations, that is almost always a customer specification, not a legal requirement.
Two claims about wood that are simply false
"Wooden pallets are fumigated with toxic methyl bromide." Not in Europe. Methyl bromide has been banned in the EU since March 2010, and the exemption covering quarantine and pre-shipment use ended in March 2011. European wooden export packaging is heat treated, marked HT. An MB stamp cannot lawfully be produced in the EU.
"Plastic pallets are ISPM 15 exempt." Loosely put, and misleading. Plastic is not exempt — it is outside the standard's scope entirely, because ISPM 15 regulates wood packaging. The exemption list in the standard is a list of wood articles. The practical consequence is the same, but the framing implies plastic passed a test that wood failed, which is not what happened.
Fire and insurance — a point in wood's favour
This is under-discussed and can cost real money. Fire codes generally treat plastic pallets as a higher fire hazard than wood. FM Global's guidance requires outdoor separation distances for plastic pallets roughly double those for wood — for stores above 200 pallets, 150 ft from a combustible wall against 90 ft for wood.
The detail with the sharpest commercial edge: protection must be based on the most severe pallet type present. Introducing plastic pallets into a wood-pallet warehouse can upgrade the sprinkler requirement for the entire area. If you are considering a switch, ask your insurer before your pallet supplier.
One statistic to handle carefully: FM Global's loss history shows 91% of idle-pallet losses involving wood and 9% plastic. That reflects population share — around 90% of pallets are wooden — not per-pallet risk. It is misused by both sides.
Carbon
Every peer-reviewed comparison we found favours wood. The magnitude, however, varies wildly: published ratios run from 1.5× to about 9×, and the largest is cradle-to-gate only, so it should never be quoted as a lifecycle figure. Results are highly sensitive to assumed trip counts and to whether biogenic carbon is counted — at least one study flips its own ranking on that accounting choice alone.
The strongest single citation is a Penn State study published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, notable because it was independently funded, where earlier work had been commissioned by one industry or the other. It found wood with conventional heat treatment about 72% lower in carbon footprint per trip than plastic.
Where plastic is the right answer
To be straightforward about it: closed-loop systems with controlled returns and washing, operations requiring repeated sanitising, cleanrooms, and applications where a precisely repeatable footprint matters more than cost. Automotive small-load-carrier systems are built around plastic for exactly these reasons.
For open-loop distribution, export, heavy and irregular loads, and anything where packaging will be repaired rather than replaced, wood remains the better economic and environmental answer — and, on the fire and carbon evidence, the safer one.
