While per capita consumption is high, growth is slowing. An ageing population, imports three times higher than exports, and superior products so efficient they curb sales. Report by ResourceWise Senior Consultant Bruce Janda.
The United States was a pioneer in tissue technology and mass marketing, beginning with the first tissue patent in 1857 and subsequent patents on packaged tissue in 1983. Scott Paper Company introduced rolled tissues with perforations for convenient dispensing during the 1890s, coinciding with the invention of the Yankee dryer. Kimberly-Clark (K-C) developed creped wadding for World War I bandages, which later evolved into the Kleenex brand facial tissue originally intended for makeup removal. The 1930s saw the introduction of two-ply tissue, and in the early 1960s, two engineers from Appleton, Wisconsin, invented the TAD process at a small Green Bay Tissue Mill. Around the same time, K-C created the Crescent Former in Neenah, Wisconsin, which became industry standard after its patent expired in 1989. Beloit Corporation launched the Twin Wire Former in circa 1970, alongside Stratified Forming. European equipment manufacturers entered the market around this period, so tissue technology is now a global enterprise, with machines no longer produced in America.
Despite these changes, America still has the highest rate of tissue consumption per capita among major populations. While equipment innovation moved to Europe and Asia, American tissue converting equipment and product development continue to impact the worldwide business. Advertising campaigns from the 1950s and 60s have shaped consumer preferences for ultra-soft (but comparatively weak) tissues and highly absorbent paper towels. Today, there are two or three prominent tissue brands, and although national TV advertising continues, it airs less frequently. Private label brands have grown but remain about half as prevalent as in Europe. Figure 8 illustrates grocery store tissue options. Technologies like TAD and structured advancements strongly influence American production, as shown in Figure 11. Improved products with reduced basis weight may have lowered overall consumption rates by replacing outdated designs.
Finally, commercial or “away-from-home” tissue products account for approximately 35% of the total US market, whereas most developed nations typically see only a 20% share. Further details about product quantities can be found in Figures 9, 10, and 11.
Figure 1 shows a map of the continental United States highlighting tissue mill locations, with mills grouped by their fibre integration status. Figure 9 provides additional details about fibre integration for different product types. Across the country, there are about 65 tissue mills and 162 tissue machines in operation.
America’s tissue market faces slowing growth and an aging population, as reflected by the 0.64% CAGR in population over 19 years (yellow bars, Figure 2). However, GDP per capita (PPP, blue line) grew at a 3.3% CAGR, outperforming most developed countries and supporting continued tissue consumption.
Figure 3 shows the trends in inflation (blue line) and unemployment (yellow bars) in America. Aside from disruptions caused by the “Great Recession” and Covid-19, both indicators show generally positive trends: unemployment hovers around 4% and inflation about 3%. Compared to many other developed countries, these results are quite favourable for continued tissue consumption.
The United States tissue market comprises both imports, as illustrated in Figure 4, and exports, depicted in Figure 5. These figures employ consistent axes to enable straightforward visual comparison between import and export trends. Data from 2024 and 2025 indicate that import volumes are approximately three times greater than export volumes – a marked departure from earlier years when trade was more evenly balanced.
Over the period analysed imports have doubled while exports have remained relatively stable. At present, import volumes represent about 5.8% of domestic production capacity, with exports accounting for only around 2%. While future trade dynamics remain uncertain, these findings suggest that US tissue production capacity is appropriately aligned with current market demands.
Trade with Canada constitutes the largest segment in both imports and exports, represented by blue bars in the respective charts. China serves as the second largest source of America tissue imports, while Mexico ranks as the second largest importer of American tissue products. Both Canada and Mexico possess significant advanced tissue technology sectors compared to other countries and continue to benefit from favourable and expedited trilateral trade agreements.
Parent rolls and products manufactured using TAD or other advanced tissue technologies – characterised by their softness, low density, and low strength, as favoured by most American consumers – present significant challenges in shipping, as they are prone to damage and create excessive tissue waste. Consequently, these logistics constraints act as a de facto trade barrier for ultra-premium products imported from regions outside Mexico or Canada.
Figure 6 shows yearly changes in America’s tissue machine fleet, broken down by tissue grade. The number of consumer machines has stayed about the same, while commercial and specialty machine counts have seen small decreases. Most newly added machines provide higher capacity than those taken out of service. Upgrades to existing machines that increase capacity are not included here but will be shown in later charts focused on technical age and total capacity. CAGR for overall American tissue capacity is 0.56%, which is just under the population growth CAGR of 0.64%. Even so, since the population growth rate has been declining over this period, America’s tissue capacity appears to be keeping pace with demand.
The structure of American tissue production has shifted in company names and ownership, though market composition remains largely unchanged over 25 years. Currently, 23 companies operate in the US, with six accounting for 83% of total capacity; two of these are European based. Of the remaining 17, four Canadian producers hold about 10% of capacity, and 13 other USA based companies make up roughly 7%. America is a competitive market for tissue.
The US grocery market has consolidated, with major players like Walmart, Kroger, Costco, and others each holding over 1% share and collectively accounting for more than half of sales (Figure 8). This shift has increased negotiation power and boosted private label brands, especially through club stores like Sam’s Club, Costco, and BJ’s, which offer ultra-premium private labels often produced by specialised non-branded manufacturers using TAD technology. These private labels are positioned beside national brands to highlight value, while large packages of branded goods remain available. In the past 25 years, European chains like Ahold (Netherlands) and Aldi (Germany) have entered the market, with Trader Joe’s (owned by Aldi North) gaining a cult following; though smaller in market share, these brands emphasise private label offerings.
Figure 9 shows the different types and quantities of tissue products produced by mills in the United States. The colour of each bar segment indicates how the mill integrates with fibre production. Blue segments denote mills that process recycled paper on site, which is common for producing commercial tissue products. Orange segments indicate integration with virgin fibre produced at the mill itself, typically found in consumer tissue production. Green bars represent mills using mainly imported virgin baled pulp, such as Canadian softwood or Eucalyptus.
Figure 10 shows that consumer bath uses 52% eucalyptus fibre, consumer towel 24%, and consumer facial 65%. Most commercial tissue products rely heavily on recycled fibre.
Advanced manufacturing processes are prevalent in American tissue production, with TAD technology accounting for the majority of advanced capacity. Within consumer products, 81% of towels and 57% of bath tissue utilise advanced technologies. The application of these methods in kitchen towels provides notable advantages: consumers benefit from improved absorbency and potentially lower costs per use, while producers can reduce fibre requirements by 20-30% or deliver enhanced performance at premium prices.
In comparison, consumer bath tissue exhibits a distinct market dynamic, primarily influenced by North American preferences for exceptional softness at the expense of strength. This regional demand alters product design economics, and evidence suggests consumers may use less paper per occasion when such softness is prioritised.
More recently, advanced technology has been integrated into 21% of commercial folded and roll towel production. These products are increasingly found in upscale restaurants and high-traffic locations such as truck stops, contributing to higher consumer satisfaction, efficient hand drying, and decreased waste. It has been demonstrated that two sheets of towelling are sufficient for thorough hand drying.
Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, and Indonesia were selected to compare tissue production within the Americas and spotlight potential low cost producers like Indonesia and Brazil, who might seek to expand their market share in the United States. Figure 12 presents a bubble chart illustrating each nation’s tissue machine quality, where the bubble size represents production capacity. The X-axis measures the average technical age, while the Y-axis reflects the average machine speed. Notably, Mexico’s machines operate at the highest average speed, whereas Indonesia and Brazil have the youngest machines in this group. Still, these factors alone do not fully represent the complexities of tissue production in the Americas.
In machine quality charts, we typically use either machine speed or wire width produced as the Y axis, but there is little distinction made between these measures. Figure 13 illustrates that the rankings of American machines change notably when average trim width is used instead of speed. On average, American machines are about 28% wider than those in Mexico or Indonesia. The United States has the world’s widest tissue machines, with a cluster measuring seven metres and several approaching widths of nearly eight metres. This greater width allows for much higher production rates at the same operating speed.
Figure 14 illustrates the average tissue production costs by country, indicating cash cost per ton by bar height and production capacity by bar width. Indonesia records the lowest cash costs followed by Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, while Canada and the United States exhibit the highest costs. Energy expenses significantly influence these cost Indonesia, Argentina, and Brazil benefit from comparatively lower energy prices. Although Mexico and Colombia have lower average energy costs than the United States or Canada, these costs constitute a disproportionately high share relative to other countries with similar overall costs. Fibre and pulp expenses (represented by red and green bar segments) also show considerable variation across the countries. Additionally, labour costs in the United States and Canada are substantially higher than those in the other countries analysed.
The US produces tissue with 45% advanced technology, compared to 29% in Canada and 16% in Mexico. Figure 15 shows that advanced technology notably reduces average costs in the US, while cost reductions in Canada and Mexico are minor when accounting for fibre savings. This is evident when comparing bar heights to Figure 14.
Figure 16 illustrates the comparative average viability of tissue machines across various countries. The FisherSolve algorithm evaluates multiple factors, including estimated capital requirements, cash production costs, machine size, technical age, local economic risk by grade, internal company risk, manufacturing competitiveness, tons produced per unit trim, and export fees. By incorporating these criteria, the assessment extends beyond current cash costs to provide a comprehensive outlook on overall viability over the next five years.
The viability of the United States tissue fleet is comparable to that of lower-cost regions such as Brazil and Argentina. Meanwhile, Mexico and Indonesia demonstrate the strongest positions in terms of viability. The wider machines utilised in the United States contribute favourably to this analysis, whereas Canada faces challenges due to its smaller machine sizes.
Figure 17 shows Scope 1 (red bar segment for on-site fuel) and Scope 2 (tan bar segments for electricity grid) carbon emissions per ton of finished tissue. The type 2 emissions are partly dependent on the carbon footprint of the local or regional electrical power grid.
Canada leads the tissue world with low carbon electrical power from its extensive hydropower electric grid. Columbia and Brazil also feature relatively clean electric grids. Indonesia’s tissue making uses a lot of coal power resulting in high emissions.
The Scope 1 emissions from power produced on-site for drying and other processes shows the effect of integrated virgin pulp production on site, allowing the use of renewable waste heat from the pulping process. Some of the American tissue mill sites are also integrated and they also show this advantage, but the overall average is impacted by the many non-integrated American mills. The American mills also have high energy input on site for extra drying required for advanced tissue processes.
Summary
This view of tissue production in the United States and select other countries looks at cash costs, technology, machine efficiency, and carbon emissions. The US market stands out due to its exceptionally high per capita consumption and significant commercial tissue output. In addition, major chains and buyers’ clubs have gained greater bargaining power, paving the way for the growth of ultra-premium store brand tissues.
Energy, fibre, and labour costs vary widely; Indonesia and Brazil have the lowest production costs, while Canada is highest and the U.S. ranks second.
In the United States, advanced tissue manufacturing methods result in significantly better product performance than Canada and Mexico. Although the drying processes used require more energy, an analysis of scope 3 emissions for fibre entering the mill may reveal benefits from reduced fibre content.
Machine viability and carbon footprint are influenced by factors such as machine size and integration with pulp production. American tissue machines are exceptionally wide on average providing efficiency and viability advantages.
Significant American investments in advanced tissue machinery may be contributing to a decrease in apparent per capita consumption, as tissue sheets are produced with lower grammage but deliver superior performance during use.
A detailed understanding of tissue producers and their individual machines is crucial for analysing the competitive landscape. This article presents an overview of the current tissue industry in America. Fluctuations in fibre prices, exchange rates, and environmental regulations create both opportunities and challenges for industry participants. Moreover, changes in ownership and consolidations are expected to persist among tissue mills in the United States, while investments in tissue-making capacity from neighbouring countries may impact imports and exports.
