Home / Blog / Sustainability & Compliance

Sustainable Dry Bag Buying Checklist

What a sustainability claim has to prove

A claim is only meaningful if it names a scope, a boundary and a comparison. Recycled content without a percentage and a feedstock source is decoration. PVC-free without a substitute and a test result is a slogan. Carbon neutral without a boundary and a baseline is not verifiable. When you write a brief, insist that each requirement has a number attached and a document that evidences it, because those two things are what separate a defensible programme from a marketing line.

There is also an order of magnitude to respect. Changing the film chemistry on a bag changes its footprint by tens of percent. Changing the hang tag changes it by well under one percent. Most of the sustainability conversation in this category happens at the small end, because the small end is visible and photographic, while the large end is buried in a bill of materials. The checklist below is ordered by impact for exactly that reason.

Service life first, because it dominates the arithmetic

Annualising is the simplest and most honest way to compare two bags. Divide the cradle-to-gate footprint by the expected service life in years and the ranking often inverts: a heavier, longer-lived bag beats a lighter short-lived one. A rental operation replacing 500 bags every two years generates five times the material throughput of the same fleet replaced every ten, and no recycled-content percentage closes that gap.

Read the last column. The heavy bag has the highest footprint per unit and the lowest per year, and the recycled bag only wins once its service life matches the standard one. This is why the first question in any brief should be about expected years of service and the conditions that shorten them: UV exposure, abrasion against frames, salt, and how often the bag is flexed. Those four decide the number, and the number decides everything else.

Film chemistry: PVC-free and phthalate-free in plain terms

The PVC question is the oldest one in the category and the easiest to specify. Polyvinyl chloride needs plasticisers to be flexible, and the plasticiser family of concern is the ortho-phthalates, several of which are restricted in the European Union, the United Kingdom and California. A PVC-free requirement is therefore really two requirements: no PVC in the film, and a phthalate screen on anything that remains, including prints, coatings and hardware.

Thermoplastic polyurethane is the direct substitute and it needs no plasticiser at all, which removes the issue rather than managing it. The performance trade-offs are real but small: TPU is lighter for a given thickness, stays flexible at low temperature, welds cleanly with radio-frequency energy, and costs more per square metre. Polyolefin and TPE films are cheaper and behave less well at creases, which is a service-life problem and therefore a sustainability problem once you annualise it.

Write the requirement as a number rather than an adjective. Phthalate-free conventionally means each listed substance below 0.1% by weight of the homogeneous material, which is the threshold used in the main restricted substance regimes. Ask which substances were screened for, not just whether the screen passed, because a screen covering four substances is not the same as one covering fifteen. The argument is set out in detail in PVC-free dry bag alternatives.

PFAS on the face fabric: what it does and what to require

A waterproof laminate does not need a durable water-repellent finish to keep water out; the film does that. The finish exists so that the face fabric does not wet out and so that mud and salt rinse off easily, which are real benefits but modest ones. Because per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances have been the default chemistry for that finish for decades, and because restrictions are tightening in several markets at once, the sensible default for a new programme is to require no intentional addition.

Testing is where programmes get caught. A claim of PFAS-free is usually evidenced by a total fluorine screen, and the commonly used screening threshold is in the low hundreds of parts per million, with 100 ppm a typical internal limit. A finish that passes a screen for a handful of specific compounds can still show measurable total fluorine, which is why the broader screen is the one to ask for. Silicone and wax finishes are the practical alternatives, with some loss of oil repellency.

Specify this on the whole bill of materials, not just the fabric. Finishes also appear on webbing, thread and sometimes on hardware coatings, and a bag can fail a total fluorine screen because of a strap. The chemistry, the testing methods and the grades of claim are covered in PFAS-free waterproof fabric.

Recycled content: reading a percentage on a spec sheet

Two numbers matter and one is usually missing. The first is the percentage by mass, which should be stated for the specific component rather than for the bag as a whole, because a bag with a 30% recycled film and no recycled webbing is not a 30% recycled bag. The second is the feedstock: post-industrial regrind is clean, traceable and available in volume, while post-consumer feedstock is more variable and genuinely scarce for TPU film.

Ask what the percentage is calculated against. A claim of 30% recycled content on a 900 g bag is 270 g of recycled material, which for a 0.5 mm film is a meaningful share of the laminate. The same claim calculated against the whole product including hardware and packaging is a much weaker statement. Request the mass-balance or batch record that supports the figure, because a percentage with no record behind it is exactly the kind of claim that enforcement notices are written about.

Then ask what recycled content costs in performance. Regrind TPU typically shows slightly lower elongation and slightly higher variability in weld behaviour, which is manageable at 20 to 30% loading and less so above 40%. The right requirement is a percentage plus the mechanical properties the finished laminate must still meet, so that a push for a higher number cannot quietly degrade the service life you started with.

Chemical compliance by destination market

Compliance is not one list but several, and the differences matter for what a bag has to carry. The European Union regulates substances in articles through REACH, with restrictions in Annex XVII and a candidate list that triggers communication duties. California operates Prop 65 with its own list and its own safe harbour levels. There are parallel schemes in the United Kingdom, Canada and several Asian markets, and voluntary schemes such as OEKO-TEX that many retailers accept as a proxy.

The unit that trips people up is the homogeneous material. A limit expressed as a percentage of the article is meaningless when the substance is in a buckle: the relevant figure is the concentration in that buckle, not in the bag. Write the requirement that way in the brief and you will get test reports that are actually usable. The substance groups and thresholds are set out in REACH compliance for dry bags, and the certificate route in OEKO-TEX and textile safety.

Enforcement is documentary, not chemical. In practice a market authority asks for a file, and the file either exists or it does not. Build the file at the point of specification rather than after the first shipment, and put a review date on it, because candidate lists and safe harbour levels change and a file that was correct two years ago may not be now.

Hardware, inks and trims: the parts buyers forget

Every compliance failure we see in this category is in a small part rather than in the film. Buckles, D-rings, zip sliders, rivets, eyelets, printed logos, reflective transfers and thread are all homogeneous materials with their own chemistry, and they are usually bought in from separate sources with their own declarations. A bag with a perfect film declaration can fail on a nickel release from a plated ring or on a plasticiser in a printed patch.

• Require a material declaration for every metal part, naming the alloy and the coating.
• Ask for a declaration and test report on every printed or transferred graphic.
• Specify the thread and webbing finish, not just the body fabric finish.
• Request a paint or coating declaration for any coloured hardware.
• Name the restricted substance list in the brief so declarations are comparable.
• Set a review date on the file, because candidate lists change every year.

The practical move is to require a single restricted substances list in the brief and to ask every component declaration to answer against it. That converts six documents in six formats into one comparable file, and it surfaces the gaps immediately. The hardware-specific screening logic is set out in RoHS and dry bag hardware, and a worked list in sustainability questions for bag makers.

Mono-material design and what happens at end of life

A dry bag is a laminate, and a laminate is the hard case for recycling. A TPU film bonded to a polyester face fabric cannot be separated mechanically at any sensible cost, so the realistic end-of-life routes are mechanical grinding into a lower-value compound, energy recovery, or landfill. Claims of recyclability that ignore this are the most common overstatement in the category, and the honest specification says what the material can actually become.

Design can still help. Keeping the film and the face fabric in the same polymer family, avoiding metal hardware where a welded alternative exists, and avoiding a mix of three polymers in one panel all improve the quality of whatever the grinder produces. A bag designed as a thermoplastic mono-material with welded hardware and no metal is genuinely more recoverable than one with a printed patch, a metal ring and a mixed-polymer zip, even if both carry the same nominal rating.

Then be honest about infrastructure. A technically recyclable bag in a market with no collection stream for flexible laminates will be landfilled regardless of the design. Where that is the case, the highest-value interventions are service life and repairability, both of which delay the disposal decision rather than improving it. The realistic routes are described in how recyclable dry bags are.

Packaging, freight and the carbon that travels with the bag

Packaging is the most visible sustainability lever and one of the smallest, which is why it is worth getting right quickly rather than agonising over. A single polybag per unit is roughly 15 to 25 g of plastic; across 500 units that is 7.5 to 12.5 kg. Paper, board and paper tape are the practical alternatives, and they work well for a product that is not fragile in transit. The constraint is moisture: a paper-packed bag shipped in a humid container can arrive with a stained carton.

Freight is a bigger number than packaging and less controllable. Soft bags ship mostly as air, which means freight cost and freight emissions are driven by volume rather than weight. Nesting sizes inside one another, shipping flat rather than rolled, and consolidating shipments all reduce it, and a 500-piece order shipped as one consolidated consignment emits far less than the same quantity split across four air-freighted samples and one sea shipment.

Extended producer responsibility rules are now in force in a growing number of markets, and they generally apply to the packaging rather than to the article. The practical requirement is registration, reporting by material and, in some schemes, a fee modulated by recyclability. That makes packaging a compliance line as well as a sustainability one, and the detail by market is set out in EPR and packaging rules.

Repairability, spare parts and the second life

A bag that can be repaired is a bag that lasts longer, and three design decisions decide whether repair is realistic. Welded construction can be re-welded or patched with a compatible film, whereas a coated fabric with a delaminating coating cannot. Hardware that is riveted or clipped on can be replaced, whereas hardware welded into a seam cannot. And a bag sold with a patch kit and instructions gets repaired, while one sold without is thrown away at the first puncture.

For fleet buyers, this becomes a stocking decision. A patch kit costs a few currency units and saves a bag worth many times that; a spare buckle costs less than a bag. The operational habit that matters is a repair station rather than a repair intention: a corner with a patch kit, a heat source, a roller and a documented method. Bags repaired within a week of damage almost always return to service.

Second life is the last step. A bag that is no longer waterproof is still a perfectly good organiser, a wet-gear carrier, a packing cell or a cover, and fleets that demote rather than bin get another two or three years out of each unit. The repair-first argument, including the cost comparison, is laid out in repairing instead of replacing, and the practical routes in extending product life for less waste.

Evidence: what to request and what to file

Ask for a file, not for assurances. A defensible file for a dry bag programme has four parts: a bill of materials with each component named, material declarations from each component source, test reports against a named restricted substances list, and the performance tests that evidence the service-life claim. Four parts, one folder, and a review date on the front.

The last row is the one most programmes skip and the one that causes the most trouble. A bag approved in March can be built in September with a buckle from a different source, and unless change control is written into the brief nobody will tell you. Require notification of any component change and a re-test, and the file stays true for as long as the programme runs.

Two standards bodies frame the language used in these documents: ISO publishes the environmental management and test-method series most declarations cite, and in the United States the EPA administers the chemical and packaging rules a US programme has to answer. Naming the standard in the brief is what makes a test report comparable between two bids.

Scoring bids against the checklist

A weighted scorecard stops a single strong claim from carrying a weak programme. Score each criterion from 0 to 3, multiply by the weight, and compare totals. The weights below reflect impact: service life dominates, chemistry and compliance follow, and packaging is a tie-breaker rather than a deciding factor.

Use it on at least two bids, because a scorecard run on one option tells you nothing. Where two bids tie, buy the one with the better documentation, because documentation predicts how the next shipment will behave far better than a sample does. And record the scores, so that a re-order in two years can be compared against the original decision rather than re-litigated from memory.

Costs, minimums and realistic timelines

Every item on this checklist has a price, and knowing the order of magnitude prevents a brief that cannot be fulfilled. Moving from PVC to TPU adds roughly 10 to 20% to film cost per square metre. A recycled-content laminate at 30% loading adds around 5 to 12%, more at higher loadings. A PFAS-free finish is broadly cost-neutral at volume. A full restricted substances test file costs a few hundred currency units per material set and is the cheapest insurance in the whole programme.

Timelines are dominated by laboratory turnaround rather than by production. Sampling typically takes 6 to 10 working days, laboratory testing 10 to 20 working days depending on the screen, and bulk production 35 to 50 days. A programme that needs both a recycled laminate and a full compliance file should plan on sampling plus testing before bulk, which means roughly eight to ten weeks from approved artwork to a shipment that can be sold into a regulated market.

Minimum order quantities are the other constraint. A 500-piece minimum is typical for a spec-built waterproof bag, and it applies per colourway in many cases, which is why a range of five colours is a 2,500-piece commitment rather than 500. That interacts with sustainability directly: over-ordering to hit a minimum and then discounting stock into a channel that will not use it is the least sustainable outcome available, and it is entirely avoidable with a realistic forecast.

Our production line has built waterproof bags since 2014 in an SGS-verified 4,950 m² facility with seven lines and 137 staff, at a 500-piece minimum and 200,000 pieces a month of capacity, sampling in 6 to 10 working days and bulk in 35 to 50 days on FOB Xiamen terms with AQL 2.5 inspection and T/T 30/70 payment. The workflow from sample to shipment is documented by the production partner and the sequencing of a first order is covered in the sample-to-bulk timeline.

Two closing references. If recycled content is the headline requirement in your brief, the feedstock and percentage detail is set out in recycled TPU dry bags, and the practical alternatives for the shell in rPET fabric dry bags. Compare the whole checklist against the eco-friendly dry bag range before you commit, and bring the same method to any second source you are considering.