Sustainable vs. Extractive Toilet Paper: A Deep-Dive Comparison

Everyday products like toilet paper can reveal a lot about our values and the systems we support. Below we compare some of the most sustainable toilet paper brands with the most extractive (conventional) brands in the U.S. across key factors: fiber type, sourcing, chemicals, packaging, labor/ownership, environmental impact, and certifications. By examining brands like Who Gives A Crap, Clean Sheet, and mainstream giants like Charmin, Scott, and Angel Soft, we can see how consumer choices reflect deeper systemic values.

If you’re looking for the healthiest, most sustainable options, see our full guide to the best bamboo toilet paper brands.

NRDC’s 2024 tissue sustainability scorecard shows many eco-friendly toilet papers (graded A or B) outperform conventional brands (graded D or F)nrdc.orgnrdc.org. Sustainable options like 100% recycled or FSC-certified bamboo rolls received top marks, whereas products like Charmin and Angel Soft scored at the bottom for reliance on virgin forest fiber.

Fiber Types: Bamboo & Recycled vs. Virgin Wood Pulp

Sustainable brands use alternative fibers that spare forests. For example, Who Gives A Crap offers both a 100% post-consumer recycled paper toilet roll and a bamboo toilet rollsustainablylazy.com. Recycled toilet paper reuses waste paper (like office paper, packaging, etc.), meaning no new trees are cut down. Bamboo paper comes from a fast-growing grass that regenerates quickly, not from slow-growing forests. Clean Sheet, a new progressive brand, makes its rolls from 100% sustainable bambooclean-sheet.co. Bamboo can grow 20-30 times faster than trees and requires no replanting after harvest, making it a renewable “tree-free” fiber source.

Extractive brands rely almost entirely on virgin wood pulp from trees. Major U.S. brands like Charmin, Scott, and Angel Soft are typically made from 100% virgin forest fiber, usually a mix of softwood and hardwood treesnrdc.orgnrdc.org. These companies historically use wood pulp from logging operations in Canada and the U.S., including old-growth forestsnrdc.orgnrdc.org. For instance, Charmin (owned by P&G) has been criticized for sourcing pulp from Canada’s climate-critical boreal forestnrdc.org. Conventional tissue products contain zero recycled content – Charmin uses no recycled fiber at allnrdc.org – reflecting a one-time use of trees for a throwaway product.

The fiber choice has huge implications. Using recycled or bamboo fiber dramatically reduces demand for logging. In fact, toilet paper made from 100% recycled content can have one-third the carbon footprint of toilet paper made from virgin pulpnrdc.org. It also spares mature forests that are important for carbon storage and biodiversity. Bamboo’s footprint is slightly higher than recycled paper but much smaller than pulp from slow-growing northern forests like the Canadian borealnrdc.org. In short, recycled paper is the most sustainable fiber, followed by responsibly-sourced bamboo; virgin tree pulp is the most extractive choice.

Sourcing Practices and Forestry Impacts

How and where the fiber is sourced determines if a brand is contributing to deforestation or not. Sustainable TP brands emphasize responsible sourcing:

• No deforestation: Using recycled paper means sourcing from waste, not forests. Bamboo farming can be done on plantations or small farms without cutting natural forests. Brands like Who Gives A Crap and others often ensure their bamboo doesn’t come at the expense of old-growth ecosystemsnrdc.org. Clean Sheet explicitly states “we’re already running out of trees – let’s not cut down any more,” choosing bamboo to avoid logging forestsclean-sheet.coclean-sheet.co.
• Certifications: Look for FSC® certification on sustainable products. FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) is the gold-standard certifier ensuring wood/bamboo comes from responsibly managed sources. For example, Who Gives A Crap’s bamboo rolls are FSC 100% certifiednrdc.org, meaning all the bamboo fiber is from FSC-approved operations. Some eco-friendly brands use the FSC Recycled label for 100% recycled fiber. Other certifications like Green Seal also indicate 100% recycled content and sustainable manufacturing (e.g., Marcal’s recycled TP is Green Seal certifiedimplasticfree.com).
• Avoiding primary forests: Ethical brands source from plantations or agricultural residues rather than intact natural forests. Bamboo typically comes from dedicated farms in Asia (often China, since bamboo grows best in tropical climates). Even recycled fiber sourcing matters – using post-consumer paper reduces pressure on timber industries.

In contrast, extractive brands often have problematic sourcing practices:

• Deforestation risk: Big tissue corporations have a history of logging primary forests. Charmin (P&G) and others source pulp from Canada’s boreal forest, which is being clear-cut at a rate of seven hockey rinks a minute largely to make toilet paper and other tissuenrdc.org. This destroys critical ecosystems for Indigenous communities and wildlife like caribou, and it releases massive carbon stored in these ancient forestsnrdc.orgnrdc.org. Companies may claim “we plant a tree for every tree cut,” but replanting plantations does not replace old-growth forest functionsnrdc.orgnrdc.org. Boreal trees regrow slowly, and clearcutting scars the land and soil in ways that saplings can’t fixnrdc.org.
• Weak certifications: Many mainstream brands tout that their pulp is “certified” – for example, Charmin’s packs display an FSC® Mix or sometimes a SFI/PEFC logonrdc.org. However, FSC Mix is a much weaker standard than FSC 100%. It means only a portion of the fiber is FSC-certified; the rest can be from less-controlled sourcesnrdc.org. P&G also leans on industry-backed certifications like SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative) or PEFC, which have lax rules and loopholesnrdc.org. According to NRDC, these don’t guarantee protection of intact forests or Indigenous rights. In short, a brand like Charmin that relies on FSC Mix or PEFC certification is likely still sourcing wood in destructive waysnrdc.org. Indeed, Charmin, Scott, and Angel Soft contain 95–100% virgin forest fibernrdc.orgnrdc.org, meaning nearly all their pulp comes from trees despite any green logos.
• Recent pledges vs reality: To their credit, some large manufacturers have begun to acknowledge the issue. Kimberly-Clark (makers of Scott and Cottonelle) in 2024 announced an ambition to eliminate natural forest fiber from their products in the futurenrdc.orgnrdc.org. This is a positive sign, but as of the latest scorecard Scott TP still relies on virgin wood and earned a “D” gradenrdc.org. Georgia-Pacific converted one of its sub-brands (ARIA) to 100% recycled content in 2024, jumping from an F to an A+ ratingnrdc.org. Yet their flagship Angel Soft remains an F-rated product directly tied to forest degradationnrdc.org. Meanwhile, P&G (Charmin) has barely budged, continuing to use primarily Canadian forest pulp and earning F grades year after yearnrdc.org. In summary, mainstream TP sourcing is still largely extractive, though pressure from consumers and NGOs is pushing some companies to explore recycled or bamboo fibers.

Chemical Usage: Bleaching, Dyes, and Fragrances

Bleaching is a major chemical process in toilet paper production. All toilet paper, even “natural” ones, is usually bleached to some degree to remove lignin (which makes paper brown and stiff) and improve softnesssustainablylazy.com. The key is what bleaching method is used:

• Chlorine-free processes: Sustainable brands avoid the harshest chemicals. Who Gives A Crap’s recycled toilet paper is whitened with oxygen-based bleach (hydrogen peroxide) and is Totally Chlorine Free (TCF)sustainablylazy.com. Its bamboo TP is bleached with ECF (Elemental Chlorine-Free) methods (a combination of hydrogen peroxide and chlorine dioxide)sustainablylazy.com. ECF still uses some chlorine compounds, but far less than the old elemental chlorine gas process, greatly reducing dioxin byproducts. Many eco-brands use PCF (Processed Chlorine Free) for recycled paper, meaning no new chlorine was used (any original paper was bleached in its first life)nrdc.orgnrdc.org. Some even offer unbleached or brown toilet paper, though unbleached paper can be less soft and slightly less durable. Overall, green brands aim for non-toxic whitening – e.g., no elemental chlorine, and often no added inks or dyes on the tissue.
• Minimal additives: Sustainable TP is typically free of extras like fragrances, lotions, or colored patterns. Who Gives A Crap, for instance, has no fragrance or dyes, and it even uses plant-based adhesives for the rollssustainablylazy.com. They also ensure no BPA in their recycled papersustainablylazy.com, addressing concerns that recycled paper might contain trace BPA from thermal receipts (WGAC tests and avoids such inputs). In short, these brands prioritize keeping the product simple and safe for both users and the environment.

Conventional toilet papers often use more chemicals or additives:

• Bleaching with chlorine compounds: Major U.S. brands bleach their virgin pulp using ECF (chlorine dioxide) by defaultsustainablylazy.com. Elemental chlorine gas bleaching (the old method that created a lot of toxic dioxins) has been phased out in the U.S. since the 1990ssustainablylazy.com. So today even Charmin and others use ECF rather than pure chlorine gas. However, ECF still produces some organochlorine pollutants. According to NRDC, making TP from virgin fiber (hence bleaching virgin pulp) generates twice as many hazardous air pollutants and significantly more water pollution than using recycled fibernrdc.org. The caustic chemicals in virgin pulp processing include not just chlorine dioxide but other agents that can harm waterways and air quality, contributing to smog and acid rainnrdc.org. By contrast, recycled paper processing is gentler and often uses oxygen-based bleaches.
• Fragrances, inks, and lotions: Some mainstream brands add perfumes or “softening” agents. For example, Angel Soft sells a lavender-scented roll; Charmin and others have varieties infused with aloe or lotion. These additives are petrochemical-based fragrances or oils that can irritate some people and are unnecessary for function. They also don’t fully biodegrade and can add to wastewater treatment load. Sustainable brands tend to avoid these gimmicks entirely – a reflection of different product philosophies (basic necessity vs. luxury feel).
• Residual toxins: An emerging concern is the presence of PFAS (“forever chemicals”) in toilet paper. Recent research found that trace levels of PFAS compounds (like 6:2 diPAP) are present in many toilet papers globally, likely due to PFAS-based agents used in pulp processingplasticstoday.complasticstoday.com. The levels are very low (parts per billion) and are not necessarily added intentionally to the final productplasticstoday.complasticstoday.com. Still, this indicates even mainstream TP can shed tiny amounts of PFAS into wastewater. The American industry claims PFAS isn’t deliberately used in U.S. tissue manufacturingplasticstoday.com, so any detected is environmental background. Regardless, choosing papers that are unbleached or TCF may further minimize any such contaminants. There’s also concern with microplastics if any plastic elements were used (though the paper itself is cellulose, not plastic). Notably, some big brands also sell “flushable” wet wipes that contain plastic fibers – these definitely shed microplastics and cause plumbing issues, but that’s a separate product category. Regular toilet paper generally doesn’t contain plastic fibers, but plastic packaging can break down into microplastic (discussed below).

In summary, sustainable TP avoids harmful chemicals by using chlorine-free bleaching and no artificial scents/dyes, whereas conventional TP uses standard chemical bleaching (ECF) and sometimes unnecessary additives. The result is that green options are safer for waterways and users, without the chemical irritants.

Packaging: Plastic-Free vs. Plastic Wrap

Packaging is another area where sustainable brands walk the talk. Eco-friendly toilet papers strive for plastic-free packaging:

• Plastic-free wrappers: Who Gives A Crap, for example, ships their rolls individually wrapped in paper (now switching to bamboo paper wraps) inside a cardboard boxsustainablylazy.com. There is zero single-use plastic in the consumer packaging. The outer shipping box is made of recycled cardboardsustainablylazy.comsustainablylazy.com. Many similar brands (Reel, Betterway, etc.) also use paper wrappers or at least paper tape on boxes. Clean Sheet likewise advertises plastic-free packaging for its rollsclean-sheet.co. This means that from factory to your door, no plastic film or shrink-wrap is used – reducing plastic waste and the risk of plastic pollution.
• Recyclable/compostable materials: The paper wrappers and cardboard are easily recyclable and often made from recycled content themselves. Some brands use soy-based inks on the paper wraps. Even any necessary adhesive tape can be paper tape (though WGAC did use a small plastic tape strip on boxes, they are working on alternativessustainablylazy.com). The goal is that all packaging can either be recycled curbside or even composted. This aligns with a circular economy approach, unlike plastic film which is rarely recycled.

In contrast, mainstream brands typically use plastic packaging:

• Shrink wrap & plastic film: Walk down a supermarket aisle and you’ll see plastic-wrapped packs of toilet paper. Charmin, Scott, Angel Soft, Quilted Northern – almost all big brands bundle their rolls in polyethylene plastic film. This wrap is usually not recycled (municipal recycling doesn’t take it), so it ends up in landfills or as litter. It can take decades or more to break down, fragmenting into microplastics. The plastic wrapping from billions of toilet rolls contributes to our mounting plastic pollution problem.
• Bulk and retail demands: Conventional packaging is designed for retail display and transport, prioritizing low cost and water resistance. Unfortunately, that has meant plastic overwrap is the norm. A few companies have tested paper packaging (for example, Seventh Generation sells some toilet paper in a paper wrapper 4-pack, and Walmart’s “Better Everyday” brand once trialed a paper package). But for the most part, the leading brands have not switched their high-volume SKUs to plastic-free packaging. They are more focused on making the plastic thinner or technically “recyclable” in store drop-off programs. (P&G has sustainability goals for recyclable or reusable packaging by 2030, but these have yet to eliminate plastic wrap on Charmin rolls).
• Environmental impact of packaging: While the bulk of TP’s footprint is from fiber sourcing and production, packaging isn’t trivial. Plastic is made from fossil fuels – making and disposing of all that plastic film adds to the product’s carbon footprint and can harm wildlife if it escapes into the environment. By choosing brands with plastic-free packaging, consumers can prevent a surprising amount of waste. For example, a 24-pack of conventional TP has a large plastic outer wrap; buying an alternative that comes in a cardboard box saves that entire sheet of plastic (multiply by how many packs you use in a year).

In short, sustainable brands opt for recyclable paper packaging, aligning with their forest-friendly mission, whereas extractive brands often cling to cheap plastic wrap, passing the disposal burden to consumers and the planet.

Labor Practices and Ownership Models

Another often-overlooked aspect is who owns the company and how they treat people. This reflects whether your dollars reinforce the status quo of corporate profit or support more equitable business models.

Mission-driven brands tend to have more ethical ownership structures:

• Social enterprise ethos: Who Gives A Crap is a certified B Corporation and was founded with a charitable mission – it donates 50% of its profits to sanitation charities (over $11 million donated as of 2023)sustainablylazy.com. It’s a private company but one that bakes giving and sustainability into its model. They score highly on transparency and social impact, as shown by their B Corp score and reporting. Labor-wise, they have to ensure fair conditions even when manufacturing in China; WGAC has publicly emphasized choosing ethical suppliers and not just chasing lowest costsustainablylazy.comsustainablylazy.com. By prioritizing purpose over max profit, these companies typically pay fair wages and invest in their communities.
• Cooperative models: Clean Sheet pushes even further – it’s structured as a business to fund systemic change rather than enrich owners. They have committed to donating 100% of profits to grassroots causes (housing justice, climate action, workers’ rights) after covering costsclean-sheet.coclean-sheet.co. Importantly, Clean Sheet plans to transition to a cooperative ownership model with support from workers.coopclean-sheet.co. This means eventually the enterprise could be owned and governed by workers or consumers, aligning with its values of economic fairness. Even now, they vow not to enrich shareholders or executives – no big bonuses, transparent finances, and an independent committee will oversee the charitable fundsclean-sheet.coclean-sheet.co. This kind of model is the polar opposite of extractive corporations. Employees are paid a fair salary, but any surplus goes to social good, not into investors’ pockets.
• Ethical supply chain: Sustainable TP makers are also more likely to consider the people in their supply chain – from farmers growing bamboo to factory workers converting pulp to paper. While detailed labor practices can be hard to verify, brands like these often obtain certifications like B Corp (which assesses worker treatment and community impact) or have ethical sourcing policies. The tone of their communications (e.g., Clean Sheet explicitly critiquing “big business and billionaires” cashing in while people struggleclean-sheet.co) shows a sensitivity to social justice that you rarely see in household product companies.

On the other side, mainstream toilet paper comes from large corporations driven by profit:

• Corporate giants: Charmin is made by Procter & Gamble, Scott by Kimberly-Clark, Angel Soft by Georgia-Pacific (which is owned by Koch Industries). These are multi-billion-dollar, investor-owned companies. Their primary fiduciary duty is to maximize shareholder value. So, profits from your TP purchase typically go to corporate earnings (and ultimately to shareholders and executives). For example, instead of funding toilets in developing countries, Charmin’s profits feed into P&G’s bottom line and dividends. This isn’t to say big companies do nothing good – they employ thousands of workers (often in unionized manufacturing plants in the U.S.), and they may donate small percentages to charity or have sustainability teams. But fundamentally, the ownership model is extractive: value flows up to distant shareholders, not necessarily back into local communities or social causes.
• Labor practices: Pulp and paper mills providing virgin fiber have sometimes been linked to poor labor conditions or union disputes, though many North American mills are unionized. The difference is, conventional brands do not emphasize fair trade or worker co-ownership. Logging operations in Canada often impact Indigenous communities (whose consent is sometimes debated). By contrast, a cooperative or B Corp tries to ensure all stakeholders (workers, community, environment) benefit. The conventional brands’ labor record is a mixed bag – workers may have decent manufacturing jobs, but the companies have also been criticized for things like anti-union activities (Koch Industries is notoriously anti-union). There is also a political dimension: buying Angel Soft, for instance, indirectly profits Koch Industries, whose owners have historically funded lobbying against environmental regulations and worker rights. Purchasing from a company like Clean Sheet or WGAC instead supports a new economy model of business.

In summary, sustainable TP brands operate on ethics and often radical generosity (co-ops, profit donation, certified social impact), whereas major brands operate on a traditional profit-driven model, with no cooperative ownership and only minimal reinvestment in social good. Your spending can either bolster the corporate status quo or help grow alternative models.

Environmental Impact: Carbon, Water, Biodiversity, Microplastics

From a systems perspective, the environmental footprint is where the differences between sustainable and extractive TP really add up. Key impact areas include:

• Carbon footprint: Toilet paper seems small, but its supply chain involves forestry, transportation, and manufacturing. Virgin pulp tissue has a heavy carbon cost because cutting forests releases CO₂ and loses future carbon sequestration. The NRDC reports that switching from forest fiber to 100% recycled content can cut greenhouse gas emissions by about two-thirdsnrdc.org. This is huge. It comes from avoiding the carbon loss of deforestation and using less energy-intensive processes. Bamboo-based TP falls in between: bamboo cultivation does emit some carbon (land clearing, farming), but it’s much faster at regrowing and capturing carbon than natural forests, and it doesn’t involve clear-cutting carbon-rich old growth. Many sustainable brands further mitigate emissions by optimizing shipping and production. Who Gives A Crap, for example, coordinates manufacturing in or near China where bamboo and recycled feedstock are sourced, then uses sea freight (much lower carbon than air) to distribution centerssustainablylazy.comsustainablylazy.com. They also invest in renewable energy (solar panels on warehouses) and even carbon offsets for shipping to achieve carbon-neutral deliverysustainablylazy.comsustainablylazy.com. Conventional brands typically have not addressed the carbon footprint of their supply chain as holistically. P&G and others rely on a continuous input of forest wood and long-distance shipping of pulp (e.g., importing pulp from Canada or South America to U.S. mills). The clear-cutting of boreal forest for Charmin is especially climate-damaging – Canada’s boreal stores twice the carbon of tropical forests per acre, so losing those trees and disturbing soil releases massive CO₂nrdc.orgnrdc.org. In short, the low-carbon choice is recycled TP, followed by bamboo TP, while virgin TP has the highest carbon emissions.
• Water use: Pulp and paper production consumes a lot of water. Here again, recycled paper has the advantage: producing TP from recycled fiber uses about half the water of virgin pulp TPnrdc.org. Virgin pulp mills require water for pulping wood chips and extensive bleaching/washing stages. Bamboo’s water use is lower than wood in growth (bamboo can grow without irrigation in rain-rich areas), but processing bamboo pulp still uses water similar to wood pulp processing. A positive for sustainable brands is that their smaller-scale operations may implement better wastewater treatment or even use closed-loop systems to recycle water. Large conventional mills have improved over decades, but when operating at huge scale, they can impact local waterways and sometimes cause pollution (e.g. dioxins from bleach in the past, or salt and organic load). Choosing TP that is unbleached or TCF reduces water pollution. Also, when forests are logged intensively (as for virgin pulp), it disrupts watersheds and can lead to erosion into streams. So beyond manufacturing, forest conservation protects water in the ecosystem too.
• Biodiversity loss: The source of fiber is critical for biodiversity. Virgin TP essentially turns habitat into a disposable product. The Canadian boreal logging tied to Charmin and others threatens species like boreal caribou (already in decline), millions of migratory birds that breed in those forests, and many other animalsnrdc.orgnrdc.org. Plantation forestry (e.g., eucalyptus plantations or pine plantations) also reduces biodiversity compared to natural forests – often one species is planted in rows where once there was a rich ecosystem. In contrast, using recycled paper has almost zero direct impact on habitats – it’s using waste, not requiring any new land or monoculture. Bamboo farming, if done on degraded land or within polyculture farms, can be biodiversity-friendly, though large bamboo plantations can raise concerns if not managed well. However, bamboo typically doesn’t require pesticides or fertilizer (it’s naturally hardy), which is good for surrounding ecosystemssustainablylazy.com. Also, bamboo harvesting doesn’t kill the plant (it re-grows from roots), so soil is not turned over and local wildlife can continue using the area. Sustainable brands often source bamboo from producers that intermix it with other crops or maintain some natural vegetation around, and since they pursue FSC certification, they must meet criteria for protecting High Conservation Value areas. All told, buying TP with recycled or bamboo fiber helps reduce pressure on high-biodiversity forests and encourages more sustainable land-use.
• Microplastic & ocean impact: While toilet paper itself is biodegradable, its associated plastic packaging is not. The plastic wrap from conventional TP can break into microplastic in the environment. These tiny fragments can end up in waterways and oceans, harming marine life. By choosing plastic-free packaged brands, you effectively eliminate that source of microplastic pollution from your household. Another angle: some mainstream brands encourage “flushable wipes” (often sold alongside TP) which are usually made of plastic fibers; those definitely contribute to microplastic and should be avoided in favor of bidets or truly biodegradable alternatives. Sustainable living advocates note that reducing TP consumption (say by using a bidet) can cut tissue use by 75–90%nrdc.org, which is even better for the environment. But strictly comparing TP products: the eco-brands have a lower pollution footprint, whereas the status-quo brands externalize pollution costs (plastic waste, polluted effluents, degraded forests) onto society.

In sum, across carbon emissions, water usage, and biodiversity, the differences are stark: Sustainable toilet paper (recycled or bamboo) dramatically lowers carbon and water usenrdc.org, and spares wildlife-rich forests from destruction. Conventional TP’s impacts include greenhouse gases from deforestation, more pollution in production, and habitat loss for countless speciesnrdc.orgnrdc.org. Add the plastic waste issue, and it’s clear that an “extractive” roll of TP carries hidden environmental costs far beyond the bathroom.

Certifications and Ratings: Credible Signals

To help consumers distinguish truly sustainable options from greenwashed ones, several third-party certifications and ratings can be considered:

• B Corp Certification: This indicates a company meets high standards of social and environmental performance. Who Gives A Crap is a certified B Corporation (score 108.9, well above the 80 point threshold)greenecofriend.co.uk, meaning its entire business is assessed for impact on workers, community, environment, and customers. B Corp status for a TP brand suggests a mission-driven approach. (Most big TP companies are not B Corps; they wouldn’t qualify without major changes to their practices.)
• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): As mentioned, FSC 100% (or FSC Recycled) on a product is a strong assurance of responsible sourcing. Look for FSC® logos on TP packaging. Many eco-brands proudly carry them. For instance, Who Gives A Crap’s bamboo and recycled rolls both carry FSC certificationus.whogivesacrap.orgen.wikipedia.org. In contrast, if a mainstream brand has only FSC Mix or just PEFC, that’s a weaker signal – better than nothing, but not a guarantee of sustainabilitynrdc.org. Angel Soft notably has no FSC certification at all (as per NRDC, it got “No” in that column)nrdc.org.
• Green Seal: Green Seal is an independent standard for tissue products that essentially requires them to be 100% recycled content, chlorine-free, and meet performance standards. Brands like Seventh Generation, Marcal, and others focused on recycled paper often have Green Seal certificationimplasticfree.com. If you see Green Seal on a TP pack, you can be confident it’s among the most sustainable (none of the virgin fiber brands have this, naturally).
• NRDC “Issue with Tissue” Scorecard: The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) publishes a well-known report grading toilet paper brands on an A+ to F scale for sustainability. This considers fiber source, percentage recycled, any alternative fibers, certifications, and bleaching methodnrdc.orgnrdc.org. The latest (6th edition, 2024) rankings give a quick snapshot of who’s doing well:
• Grades A/A+: Almost exclusively brands with 100% recycled fiber. For example, Who Gives A Crap 100% Recycled earned an A ratingnrdc.orgnrdc.org (551 out of 600 points), and brands like Seventh Generation, 365 (Whole Foods), Green Forest, and Marcal also got A’s or A+ with similar productsnrdc.orgnrdc.org. One notable A+ in 2024 was Georgia-Pacific’s ARIA, after switching to recycled contentnrdc.org. These top-rated products have high post-consumer recycled content and PCF bleaching.
• Grade B: Typically bamboo fiber products with good practices. Who Gives A Crap Premium Bamboo, for example, got a B (400 points)nrdc.org. Other bamboo TP brands like Reel, Cloud Paper, PlantPaper, Caboo also score in the B rangenrdc.orgnrdc.org. They use no forest fiber and often have FSC certification, but since bamboo isn’t recycled, the score is a bit lower than recycled TP. Still, a B rating means a very sustainable choice relative to the norm.
• Grades C and D: Few brands fall in C (most are either doing quite well or quite poorly). Kimberly-Clark’s Scott and Cottonelle now rate a D (around 200 points)nrdc.org – an improvement from previous F’s after KC set deforestation-free pledgesnrdc.org. D means they might have, say, some FSC mix fiber or partial improvement, but are far from ideal. A D-rated TP is still using mostly virgin fiber and ECF bleach, just with minor better sourcing than the worst.
• Grade F: Unfortunately, many household-name products remain in this category. Charmin is a glaring example with an F (score ~115)nrdc.org. Angel Soft is even worse, basically bottom of the list with an F (score 4 out of 600!)nrdc.org. An F means 0% recycled or alternative fiber, no meaningful certifications, and no commitments to stop sourcing from forests. Other F’s include store brands that are 100% virgin (e.g., Walmart’s Great Value, Costco’s Kirkland, etc.)nrdc.orgnrdc.org. If a product isn’t at least partially recycled or FSC bamboo, it likely scored an F.

To illustrate, here’s a comparison of some specific brands and their sustainability credentials:

(🌱 Sustainable choice; conventional choices listed for comparison.)

As the table shows, truly sustainable brands carry multiple credible certifications and earn top ratings, whereas the extractive brands barely have a sustainability leg to stand on (an “F” speaks for itself). Certifications like B Corp and FSC provide independent verification that a company is meeting higher standards. Conversely, if you see a big brand claiming “sustainability” with only an obscure logo or a vague “for every tree cut one is planted” statement, be skeptical – the hard data (like NRDC’s scorecard) often tells a different story.

Brand Spotlights: Who Gives A Crap, Clean Sheet vs. Charmin & Co.

To bring it all together, let’s briefly profile the specific brands mentioned and how they exemplify sustainable vs. extractive approaches:

• Who Gives A Crap – Ethical innovator: Founded in 2012, WGAC is a mission-driven company that sells toilet paper via subscription or online order. They use 100% recycled paper or bamboo, with no plastic packaging, and donate 50% of profits to charity (improving sanitation in developing countries)sustainablylazy.com. They are carbon-conscious (doing lifecycle assessments and carbon offsets)sustainablylazy.comsustainablylazy.com and are a Certified B Corp and FSC-certified operationen.wikipedia.org. In NRDC’s rankings, WGAC’s recycled TP is among the top-rated globallynrdc.org. The brand has proven that consumers will support sustainability – it has a loyal following (their fun, quirky wrapper designs and humor help). WGAC shows that purchasing power can drive positive change: in their decade of growth, they’ve donated over $11 million to build toilets and brought sustainability into an everyday product, forcing big brands to take notice.
• Clean Sheet – Radical new model: Launched in 2025, Clean Sheet is a UK-based (expanding to U.S. soon) toilet paper brand that might be called “the world’s most progressive TP.” It uses 100% bamboo, plastic-free packaging, and here’s the kicker – 100% of profits are donated to causes like fair housing, climate justice, and worker rightsclean-sheet.co. The founders explicitly set it up to challenge the system, not to get richclean-sheet.co. After paying staff fair wages and costs, all profit that would go to shareholders goes instead to grassroots organizations. They intend to become a cooperative, so that the enterprise remains accountable to its mission and possibly owned by the community of consumers or workersclean-sheet.co. Clean Sheet’s slogan is “Change, from the bottom up,” reflecting how something as mundane as toilet paper can be a vehicle for funding social change. While new (so not on big scorecards yet), they tick all the sustainability boxes (bamboo to save trees, aiming for recycled paper in futureclean-sheet.co, no bleach beyond what’s necessary, etc.) and add a transformative ownership twist. Clean Sheet exemplifies the idea that even basic purchases can be acts of solidarity – supporting this TP means supporting systemic change directly. It doesn’t get more empowering than that for a consumer product.
• Charmin, Scott, Angel Soft – Status quo giants: These household names represent the classic “soft, plush” toilet paper Americans grew up with – and the environmental toll that comes with it. Charmin (by P&G) is notorious in sustainability circles for its outsized impact on forests. It uses 0% recycled contentnrdc.org, sourcing from places like the Canadian boreal, and has received F grades six years running in NRDC’s reportsnrdc.org. P&G has resisted shareholder and consumer pressure for change, even facing petitions and a shareholder vote reprimanding its board over deforestation concernsnrdc.org. Charmin’s marketing focuses on ultra-softness (those bear cartoons) while glossing over the fact that it’s “flushing forests down the toilet”nrdc.org. They now have an FSC Mix logo and claims of replanting trees, but as NRDC exposed, those claims are greenwashing that don’t address the core issuesnrdc.orgnrdc.org. Scott (by Kimberly-Clark) historically also relied on virgin pulp, but K-C is at least starting to pledge forestry changes. Still, the popular Scott 1000 roll is an F/D rated product. Angel Soft (by Georgia-Pacific) is one of the cheapest big brands and correspondingly one of the worst environmentally (virtually all virgin fiber, no certifications). Its parent, GP/Koch, did launch a separate recycled line (Aria) but hasn’t reformed Angel Soft itself, which NRDC gave one of the lowest scores of allnrdc.org. These brands are owned by extremely wealthy corporations – buying their TP feeds into the conventional profit machine (e.g., Koch Industries’ profits or P&G’s dividends) rather than sustainability. On labor and social responsibility, they have conventional practices – no profit-sharing with causes, no cooperative governance. They prioritize scale, low cost (thanks in part to not internalizing environmental costs), and marketing. The extractive model here means natural resources are extracted (trees turned to pulp), and the profits extracted from consumers go to distant shareholders, with minimal accountability for the ecological damage.

In a nutshell, Who Gives A Crap and Clean Sheet demonstrate what “voting with your wallet” can achieve, while Charmin, Scott, and Angel Soft illustrate the old paradigm of profit over planet. The contrast is stark on every level – from what they’re made of, to how they’re made, to where the money goes.

Conclusion: Purchasing Power and Systemic Values

When someone challenges the idea of consumer purchasing power – suggesting that individual choices don’t matter – the story of toilet paper offers a grounded rebuttal. No, buying a better toilet roll won’t save the world alone or overhaul the global economy overnight. But it’s not trivial either: it’s about alignment with values and building demand for systemic change.

Choosing a sustainable toilet paper is a tangible example of how spending choices reflect deeper values:

• It shows that you value forests and climate – by not supporting products that clear-cut ancient trees. As we saw, opting for recycled or bamboo TP helps protect forests and reduces carbon emissions dramaticallynrdc.orgnrdc.org.
• It supports ethical business models – backing companies that invest in communities and fair practices instead of mega-corporations that externalize costs. Every dollar towards a B Corp or cooperative is a dollar that doesn’t go to a conglomerate’s coffers.
• It sends a market signal. The success of brands like Who Gives A Crap (now a well-known company) has forced giants to start paying attention. Consumers created that demand. If nobody bought the eco-friendly options, P&G would have zero incentive to change Charmin. But because people do care – 28 toilet paper products earned B or higher in NRDC’s latest review, up from just a handful a few years agonrdc.org – even the big players are starting to inch toward innovation (e.g., K-C’s pledges, GP’s recycled line).
• It’s an entry point to systemic thinking. As Clean Sheet argues, redirecting everyday spending can turn individual choices into collective actionclean-sheet.co. It won’t fix everything, but it builds awareness and infrastructure for a better system. Many folks who switch to sustainable TP also start questioning other household products, perhaps moving on to reduce waste elsewhere, support renewable energy, or demand better from companies. It’s a domino effect of consciousness. And companies with alternative models can grow and inspire change in other industries (if Clean Sheet’s 100% donation model succeeds, it could influence how we think businesses should operate).

In conclusion, the comparison between sustainable and extractive toilet paper isn’t just about a single product – it’s a microcosm of how our purchasing choices can either reinforce harmful systems or help build new, values-driven ones. Something as ordinary as toilet paper can either contribute to “flushing away” forests and fueling corporate profits, or it can be a way to stand up for forests, fair labor, and a regenerative economy. Christa can confidently reply that while systemic change requires more than buying better products, conscious consumer choices do have ripple effects. They support companies that are doing the right thing, put pressure on those that aren’t, and align our money with our morals. Even in the bathroom, we have a chance to vote for the world we want to live in – and that is the power of purchasing when done with eyes open.

Sources:
sustainablylazy.comsustainablylazy.com

clean-sheet.coclean-sheet.co

nrdc.orgnrdc.org; 

en.wikipedia.orgnrdc.org.