Skip to content

Yard journal · Sustainability

What we changed in the reuse math, and why

Revision four lowered our own water figure by twenty per cent because a customer’s consultant had better data than we did. Publishing revisions rather than quietly restating them.
Published
January 20, 2026
Written by
Ruthanne Pilcher
Reading time
8 minutes

Ask about this

Questions on anything in this post reach the people who wrote it. Put it in the message field.

A working business address — we reply by email only

US or Canadian number, e.g. (816) 555-0134

Two-letter code or full name, e.g. KS or Kansas

US ZIP (66115 or 66115-1204) or Canadian (M5V 3L9)

Whole number — units, pallets or truckloads

We reply by email — ReGaylord has no telephone line. Your number is only used if a driver needs dock directions. Answered inside one business day.

Key takeaways

  • Revision four lowered our water factor from 3.4 to 2.7 gal/lb after a customer's consultant supplied better mill data.
  • Trees are now applied to the virgin share of the furnish only, not to the whole board weight.
  • It is the second revision that has made our own claims smaller, and we publish revisions rather than quietly restating.
  • Three things we still leave out: landfill methane, fibre-length value, and reused accessories.

In November a sustainability consultant working for one of our larger accounts sent a polite three-paragraph email explaining that our process-water factor was too high. She was right. Revision four of our factor set, published in January, lowers it from 3.4 to 2.7 gallons per pound of avoided containerboard.

That reduces our headline water claim by about twenty per cent. It is the fourth time we have revised these numbers and the second time a revision has made us look worse.

What changed

Revision four
FactorWasNowReason
Process water avoided3.4 gal/lb2.7 gal/lbBetter mill recirculation data; older figures predate modern closed-loop systems
Trees per tonApplied to all fibreApplied to virgin share onlyRecovered fibre does not come from trees; applying the conversion to the whole furnish overstated it
Carbon intensity0.95 lb CO₂e/lb0.95 lb CO₂e/lbUnchanged; still mid-range for North American production
Freight nettingLane-basedLane-based, backhaul-weightedRefined to reflect the 38% of miles that run on matched returns

Why publish the revision rather than just update the number

Because anybody who used our previous figures in a report now needs to know they have changed, and in which direction. Quietly restating is how numbers lose their meaning.

It also, frankly, makes the remaining numbers more credible. A factor set that has only ever moved upward is a marketing document.

The most useful email we received last year told us we were overstating a benefit. We would like more of those.
Ruthanne Pilcher, partner

The revision history, complete

  • Revision 1, 2021 — first published factor set. Single carbon figure, no freight penalty, no stated counterfactual. Honest but thin.
  • Revision 2, 2023 — freight penalty introduced after an internal review concluded our claims were unqualified. Lowered headline figures by roughly seven per cent.
  • Revision 3, 2025 — board weights replaced with our own scale data across a thousand-plus measured boxes, rather than supplier catalogue figures. Raised some figures, lowered others.
  • Revision 4, 2026 — water factor reduced; trees applied to virgin share only; freight netting refined.

Where the numbers remain conservative

Three places we deliberately leave value on the table:

  1. Avoided end-of-life emissions. Landfilled corrugated generates methane as it decomposes; counting it would raise our figures materially, but the rate varies so much by site that we leave it out.
  2. Fibre-length value. Every pulping cycle shortens fibre and eventually forces virgin input into the system. Reuse defers that permanently and no standard factor set captures it.
  3. Accessories. Liners, caps, pallets and wrap that also get reused are excluded from headline numbers unless a customer specifically asks for a full-shipment model.

Use them yourself

The factors are published openly and are not proprietary. If your sustainability team wants to apply them to volumes bought elsewhere, that is a perfectly good outcome — better data in the market makes every reuse argument easier to have.

Questions

Follow-ups on this post.

Can we use your factors for volumes bought elsewhere?
Yes. They are published openly and are not proprietary. Better data in the market makes every reuse argument easier to have, including ours.
Why does a lower number make the rest more credible?
Because a factor set that has only ever moved in the flattering direction has not been tested by anybody. Revisions in both directions are what distinguish a methodology from a marketing document.

Ruthanne Pilcher · January 20, 2026 · Sustainability

Written at the ReGaylord reload yard, 3259 Fiberglass Rd, Kansas City, Kansas. If any of it is wrong, or you have better data, tell us — several of these posts exist in their current form because a customer argued with an earlier one.

Got a question this did not answer?

Send it. We answer every one, and the good ones become the next post.

Get a quote