Packaging Europe Issue 16.2

VOLUME 16.2 – 2021

CO2 EMERGENCY

THE CHALLENGE OF DECARBONIZING PACKAGING OMNICHANNEL • ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION INTERVIEW • SOFTWARE • CEFLEX • COLOURS & INKS

Editor

Brand Director

Victoria Hattersley

Tim Sykes

Journalists

Sales Director

Elisabeth Skoda Libby Munford

Jesse Roberts

Digital Editor

Dominic Kurkowski

Fin Slater

Senior Sales Executive

Production Manager

Sales & Marketing Operations

Rob Czerwinski

Alain Rizk

Advertising Coordinator Senior Audience Kayleigh Harvey Development Executive IT Support Syed Hassan

Operations Director

VOLUME 16.2 – 2021

2

17

24

29

Andrew Wood

Audience Development Executive Dominy Jones

Amber Dawson

Packaging Europe Ltd Part of the Rapid News Communications Group 9 Norwich Business Park, Whiting Road, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 6DJ, UK Registered Office: Carlton House, Sandpiper Way, Chester Business Park, Chester, CH4 9QE. Company No: 10531302.

Registered in England. VAT Registration No. GB 265 4148 96 Telephone: +44 (0)1603 885000 Editorial: editor@packagingeurope.com Studio: production@packagingeurope.com Advertising: jr@packagingeurope.com Website: packagingeurope.com Facebook: facebook.com/PackagingEurope Twitter: twitter.com/PackagingEurope LinkedIn: uk.linkedin.com/company/packaging-europe YouTube: youtube.com/PackagingEurope © Packaging Europe Ltd 2021 No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form for any purpose, other than short sections for the purpose of review, without prior consent of the publisher.

ISSN 2516-0133 (Print) ISSN 02516-0141 (Online)

3 4

9

13

17

21

24

27

29

32

Editorial Victoria Hattersley The carbon crisis: Four big questions for the packaging industry The challenge of carbon reduction Decarbonizing the paper industry How will the industry achieve net-zero by 2050?

It’s all about the consumer: The way to a successful omnichannel strategy The omnichannel trend Unpacking the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Universal Circular Economy Policy Goals Ellen MacArthur Foundation interview ‘Design automation is about creating new jobs’: A conversation with CHILI Publish Print software Always recycled: Navigating flexible packaging’s multiple paths towards a circular economy The latest from CEFLEX Naturally done: A deep dive into biobased packaging innovations for 2021 ThePackHub perspective Finding the right tone: Colours and inks in packaging Balancing shelf-appeal and sustainability On second thoughts... When ‘recyclable’ is not enough to tackle global plastic pollution

EDITORIAL |

T

he climate crisis, and the vast challenge of carbon reduction, is the headline theme of this issue as it is to a certain extent of all our lives – particularly, I should say, the emerging generations. Because young people are increasingly angry about the grave situation we find ourselves in, and rightly so. It’s all very well calling the Greta Thunbergs of the world ‘naïve’ as some have done – if only we were all so naïve – but this is both patronizing and reductive. Those young voices calling out for global, systemic change are the ones decision-makers have an obligation to listen to. On a positive note, there does seem to be an ever-increasing recognition of the need for global climate collaboration – not least from the US now the grown-ups are once again in charge.

For the packaging industry, the topic of carbon is of course a highly complex one with many different – sometimes competing – metrics to bear in mind, from direct emissions to raw material extraction, processing and transport. In this issue, I put some key questions to various members of the industry to gauge how it is working to achieve this delicate balancing act. Meanwhile, one of our guest contributors, Adrian Hiel, delves a little deeper into the specific decarbonization challenges facing the European paper industry.

On other subjects, Fin Slater recently spoke to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Carsten Wachholz about their Universal Circular Economy Policy Goals, and we share the highlights of this interview. Fin has also been burying into the world of print software and emerged with some interesting insights from Kevin Goeminne of CHILI Publish, about the challenges and opportunities increasing automation presents for this sector.

Victoria Hattersley Senior Writer

Elisabeth Skoda, meanwhile, has been tracking the ongoing omnichannel trend and the role packaging can play in ensuring a smooth customer experience therein. Her second article for this issue puts the spotlight on the subject of colour: more specifically, how brand owners can achieve colours that stand out on-shelf while factoring in sustainability requirements.

We also feature a wealth of expert guest comment. Paul Jenkins from ThePackHub discusses the possibilities for bio-based packaging innovation, while CEFLEX’s Dana Mosora explains why the initiative is getting behind a strategy that backs both chemical and mechanical recycling. And finally, in our regular On Second Thoughts… column, Dominic Hogg (formerly Chairman of Eunomia and now Director of Equanimator) questions whether ‘recyclable’ is really enough to tackle the global plastic pollution problem.

And finally, the news from another of our Packaging Europe platforms (yes, we have several). Entries are now closed for our 2021 Sustainability Awards and we are delighted to have received a record 309 entries, once again demonstrating the breadth of serious innovation across the supply chain. Over the coming months, we’ll be sharing insights into some of these cutting-edge developments so look out for n those. But for now, let the judging commence!

Victoria Hattersley Victoria Hattersley vh@packagingeurope.com @PackEuropeVicky

Packaging Europe | 3 |

THE CARBON CRISIS: FOUR BIG QUESTIONS FOR THE PACKAGING INDUSTRY What practical steps is the industry taking – and what solutions are on the horizon – to tackle the monumental challenge of carbon reduction?

Victoria Hattersley spoke to experts from the Carbon Trust, Amcor, Mondi, Smurfit Kappa and Tetra Pak to get their views on some of the big questions around this issue.

R

educing carbon emissions to avert climate catastrophe is the true existential challenge of our times – far more than Covid or anything else we might conceivably think of. And while the pandemic may have given us some temporary breathing space over the past year as emissions, according to the Global Carbon Budget Report, took a 7% drop, it’s almost certain we will be back on the same destructive path as soon as life returns to what we might blithely consider ‘normal’.

We know all this, and at Packaging Europe we report daily on the steps various members of the value chain are taking to grapple with this task. Some are making real progress, while others readily use terms like ‘circular economy’ and ‘decarbonization’ but have yet to make the kind of substantive changes the situation requires.

None of the people I have spoken to for this piece claim to have all the answers but were happy to share their thoughts on what concrete action might look like. The first question they addressed – and it’s one we will all by now be familiar with – was:

1. Do we need to put the focus on carbon over plastic waste?

The ‘plastics backlash’ is perhaps an overused term but it’s certainly had major reverberations across the industry in recent years. So much so that some would say the focus on the – undeniably dire – issue of plastic waste has drawn attention away from the wider overall climate crisis. Is this a fair representation?

In part, it may come down to a simple case of ‘what the eye can see’. “Obviously the plastic waste is more visible so I think that, even in the perception of government and media sometimes it is put in the same bucket as climate change when really they are very different,” says Gerald Rebitzer, Director of Sustainability at Amcor Flexibles. “Both are very important so I’m not saying we should think of it as one vs. the other, but my personal view is that the climate crisis is the important issue for humanity.”

But for others, they are really two parts of the same thing and cannot be treated separately. “Tackling plastic waste and addressing the climate crisis are both important and often go hand-in-hand,” says Laura Timlin, Director, Business Services at the Carbon Trust. “We know that we need to move away from using fossil fuels in order to help global economies to fully decarbonize – should virgin plastic derived from fossil fuels continue to be used at the current rate, it will comprise 17% of global emissions by 2050.

So, reducing reliance on virgin plastic will be crucial to tackling the climate crisis at the same time as addressing the damaging environmental impact of plastic waste.”

Most likely, the solution lies somewhere in-between. We cannot put all our energies into reducing plastic waste when the plastics industry is not even the biggest producer of carbon emissions: but more efficient use of the plastics we do create – and perhaps a greater focus on non-fossil-based materials – could make a real difference. Which leads us on to our next question.

2. What decarbonization routes should the industry focus on?

The above is all well and good: but if this justified urgency is not backed up by concrete action on a wider scale then we’ll all be left floundering. The people I spoke to have some areas of agreement and some differing views on where the industry should be directing its efforts. What does seem to be a source of agreement is that all stakeholders in the packaging sector need to broaden their perspective.

| 4 | Packaging Europe

The increased use of recycled content for plastic production is one strand: the world as a whole must come to treat plastic as the precious commodity it is. Only then can it be part of the solution, rather than contributing to the problem.

“Utilizing recycled content is very important in a low carbon economy,” says Laura Timlin. “Carbon emissions continue to come from plastic packaging after its disposal – with the amount of emissions dependent on the manner of its disposal. Most plastic packaging has low value and is not recycled but rather incinerated, which not only generates emissions but also wastes resources. Part of this comes down to an increased focus on design for recyclability and resource efficiency, using materials that are part of mainstream recycled pathways.”

While increased recycling and improving the entire infrastructure for this could certainly reduce the overall carbon footprint of fossil-based plastics, we should also consider the role played by the feedstocks themselves.

Some put it more emphatically: “The answer is plant-based not recycling,” says Gilles Tisserand, Head of Sustainability Transformation, Tetra Pak Europe & Central Asia. “Plant-based materials are renewable and better for the environment. Renewable resources can be replenished over time and enable a move away from fossil fuel-based products, with a lower carbon footprint and reduced environmental impact. Bioplastics developed from sugarcane are an exciting area and we are continuing to innovate with sugarcane-derived polymers. Already, we’ve launched our Tetra Rex® Plant-based carton, the world’s first and only fully renewable beverage carton.”

And what about reusables? In recent years a considerable amount of momentum seemed to be building around reusable packaging models but this has slowed a little – in part, but not wholly, because of the safety concerns around Covid-19. So how can the industry get reuse back on track, enabling it to play its part in the carbon solution?

“A lot more needs to be done to push this agenda,” says Laura Timlin. “A reuse model provides a compelling way to reduce climate impacts by avoiding emissions associated with single-use packaging. Many brands will need to completely rethink their business model. Not only does a reuse model need to be easy for a consumer but it also needs to help a brand maintain its market value, credibility and competitiveness.”

However, Gerald Rebitzer sounds a note of caution here, reiterating the importance of LCA: “Carbon emissions for reuse models need to be considered so one should only make that change if it leads to lower carbon emissions; for example,

if reusable bottles are being shipped a long way that somewhat negates the environmental benefits.”

The above are by no means the only routes to carbon reduction, but it’s a fair overview of the directions in which the sustainability conversation is moving.

3. Should we be materials-agnostic?

Another big question with no simple answer: what of the packaging materials themselves and their respective carbon footprints? Do we favour plastics?

Paper? Infinitely recyclable materials such as metal and glass? The crux of this issue is that it’s very hard to quantify the individual carbon impact of any material. By what metric do we measure? The initial production of the material? Distance travelled? Weight? End of life? So many questions – and there are many, many more.

With plastic, for example, its protective properties are undeniable and the carbon impact of production is comparatively low, so the issue here is that we are still, globally, falling short when it comes to the appropriate collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure.

According to Gerald Rebitzer, while Amcor uses plastics, aluminium and paper, “from a carbon perspective, for most applications plastics and specifically flexibles are kind of unbeatable. But we need to solve the recyclability question otherwise there will be policies that ban certain plastics and then you go back to metal cans or glass which have a very bad LCA performance compared to plastics – even if they are recycled.”

What about the perspective from the paper industry? How does it counter the argument that paper is far more energy-intensive than plastic to produce and that, furthermore, that the paper industry is currently under less pressure from governments to tackle its emissions?

“It is not a simple matter of evaluating a carbon footprint in isolation,” says Susan Brunner, Senior Sustainability Positioning Manager, Mondi Group. “We also have to consider the energy fuel mix (for paper it’s mainly biomassbased), in particular whether the energy is derived from renewable materials.

According to Cepi, the paper industry has lowered its carbon emissions by 27% since 2005 and is the largest industrial generator and user of renewable energy in Europe.”

And other paper producers believe – perhaps unsurprisingly – that we should be moving away from plastics altogether. “Plastic is a fossil-based product and for the moment not easily recycled,” says Steven Stoffer, Group VP of Sustain-

Packaging Europe | 5 |

able Development at Smurfit Kappa. “Even when it is recycled, it will most likely eventually be used as fossil-based fuel for heat generation. From that perspective, it has a delayed use as fossil fuel. Paper will never have that issue.”

Or maybe, in some cases, there should be no packaging at all? “The important thing with packaging is to avoid knee-jerk reactions by substituting with alternate materials that do not perform as well,” says Laura Timlin. “The lowest emission scenario is to eliminate all packaging where it is not required, i.e. online grocery retailers now offer a no-bags option which enables the customer to unpack straight from the delivery crate.”

How do we unpick all these varying – and sometimes quite opposite – opinions? Is an agnostic approach the best one: in short, yes, if you consider it to be a case of choosing the right material for each application (oftused phrases such as ‘plastics where possible, paper where necessary’ come to mind here). There is no sense in demonizing any one material: it comes down to that delicate balancing act involving all the many metrics that make up the life cycle of a package.

“At the moment a lot of the raw materials for polymers are a by-product of fuel production for the automotive sector: naphtha, diesel etc. If you look at how much oil and gas goes into fuels vs. how much goes into plastics, about 90% goes into fuels. At the moment chemical recycling is competing with a by-product that is generated from fuel production. Once there is more regulatory demand for electric cars and fuel production is reduced then chemical recycling should become a lot more competitive because there would be less of these by-products available to use. It could change the dynamics of the petrochemical chain.”

As to paper, Smurfit Kappa’s Steven Stoffer tells us how new fuels, such as hydrogen, may help to make the industry more energy efficient - albeit in the coming decades, not years. “Also, there are lots of ongoing studies researching how to make paper without the use of water. If that is possible, then the energy requirements from paper reduction will be greatly reduced.”

But this problem will not be solved by technology alone, cautions Laura Timlin. While new technologies can help, “the real difference will be behaviour change from both organizations and consumers.”

4. What are the most promising emerging solutions or technologies?

How to move forward?

The above has been focused mainly on today’s market realities – but technology is evolving all the time. Are there any ‘game-changing’ solutions emerging with the potential to make a real difference to the packaging sector’s carbon footprint?

For Gerald Rebitzer, there is not one single tech, or even a handful of technologies – it comes down to systemic change – “increasing use of renewable energy everywhere, increasing recyclability: if we really get to the point where a large proportion of plastics are recycled and stay in the loop then the losses are filled with polymers from renewable sources. Then you have the most ‘perfect’ system available as you keep the polymers in the loop wherever possible and you can ‘plug the gaps’ with renewables. That would actually disconnect the plastics from the fossil fuel usage and related impact.”

Chemical recycling, of course, is always hovering tantalizingly on the horizon, and most would agree there are huge opportunities for circularity here if – or when – the technology becomes widely available and economically viable. But there is still work to be done around the economics of this, and also the energy consumption required for the process.

As an interesting side note, Gerald Rebitzer gives us an illustration of how focusing on emissions reduction in one industry can have a trickledown effect on sustainable development in other sectors.

To be blunt, is this ‘behaviour change’ happening quickly enough?

There will hopefully always be areas of healthy disagreement, but more and more what we hear are voices calling for broad areas of consensus. It is not a case of pitting one material – or one strategy – against another. With carbon, there is no ‘perfect’ solution, only the best that can be achieved. Of course, as individuals we can all play our part, but we are beyond relying on the example of individuals alone: the major change has to be systemic.

“Some companies are doing a lot in this space but this level of effort needs to be universally applied in order to see significant change,” says Laura Timlin.

“It is therefore really important for packaging companies to demonstrate the action they are taking by committing to, and then setting science-based targets backed by a plan on how they are transitioning to meet the requirements of a 1.5-degree pathway aligned with the Paris Agreement.”

Indeed. And there has been some real progress made within the industry, while initiatives such as the European Green Deal aim to provide incentives for change, transforming the 27-country bloc into a low-carbon economy without reducing economic growth. But this is no time for hearty back-slapping and champagne all round. There needs to be greater transparency and scrutiny around decarbonization: those in the industry that are doing their n part will welcome that; others will need to rethink.

| 8 | Packaging Europe

DECARBONIZING THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Adrian Hiel

There are many challenges facing the EU paper industry as it works to meet its emission-reduction obligations. Adrian Hiel, a Brussels-based public affairs professional representing cities in the energy transition and a steering committee member of the Coalition for Energy Savings, explores some of the potential routes to achieving this.

N

et-zero by 2050 in the EU is not a target, ambition or goal. It is now the law. Along with net-zero by 2050 the law calls for a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 from a 1990 base.

The paper industry, as the fifth most energy-intensive industry in Europe, has a lot of work to do. The industry has an impressive track record in reducing emissions – 29% since 2005 – so it essentially needs to do the same again in the next nine years. Not an easy task.

Fundamentally, it will require two changes in mentality: First, from doing the same things more efficiently, to using different technologies that produce radically lower emissions. Secondly, with the end goal fixed by the climate law it is no longer a matter of what, but when? How quickly can the industry transform?

Carbon costs The biggest factor in pushing the timeline will probably be the EU’s system for taxing carbon – the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). In recent weeks it has surged to new highs in reaction to the EU’s Climate Law. It now stands above €40/tonne and is up 70% in the last year.

About 70% of the energy used in paper-making is the drying stage. So that’s where we will focus our attention in how the industry can introduce new technologies that might actually make it sustainable and circular.

The tech is there – and better tech is almost there Fortunately, there are a couple of different options available to the industry to meet Europe’s Climate Law, a couple of options on the near horizon that can drastically reduce the cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels and a couple of tempting detours that are best avoided, but we’ll get to those later.

96% of the paper industry can be electrified now using existing technology, according to a paper released late last year by Dr Silvia Maddedu of The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “…the paper industry uses a lot of heat that is not particularly high temperature. We found that the paper industry could be almost fully electrified in the first stage. The technologies are there and could be implemented,” said Dr Maddedu.

“The most promising solution for the decarbonization of the paper industry has to be the humble heat pump.”

The industry already uses a lot of electric boilers as back-up in the case of breakdown or maintenance and occasionally when electricity prices are very low. They are cheap to buy, easy to use but expensive to run full-time as electricity is often several times more expensive than gas. One of the issues with electricity is that it often faces three times as many taxes and levies as gas per unit of energy – a holdover from times when Europe’s electricity grid was dirty and fuelled by coal. But as the grid gets greener there are ever-stronger calls to move the taxation burden from clean electricity onto polluting gas.

If the industry is actually serious about electrifiying and decarbonizing, the review of the EU’s Energy Taxation Directive later this year would be a good time to add its voice to the chorus calling for the tax burden to be shifted. The major caveat is that taxation is a national matter so the EU cannot force the shift by itself.

Packaging Europe | 9 |

| 10 | Packaging Europe

Geothermal power plant

“Attempting to increase the efficiency of fossil-fuel assets that seem destined to become stranded assets is a false economy.”

That burning sensation

Less disruption leads to a lack of change

The use of biomass in the paper industry has gone up by 50% in the last 30 years and it now represents 60% of the primary energy used in the industry.

There are a couple of reasons for this: 1) biomass in the form of wood waste is a readily available, local source of energy for many paper-manufacturers and 2) burning biomass is generally exempt from the EU ETS. But there are serious issues with the way the biomass industry has evolved in Europe and ongoing discussions in Brussels mean that the generous rules around biomass are likely to go through the wringer after a critical report released in January detailed ongoing issues. But so long as the industry restricts itself to waste that doesn’t have other possible uses it should be fine in the medium-term. Longer-term there is more uncertainty as biomass is currently classified as a ‘transitional solution’ in draft EU documents. Burning biomass can emit more pollution than burning gas, and claims of biomass climate neutrality are based on several decades of carbon absorption by growing trees.

There are other ways to decarbonize the paper industry that seem less promising. CCS and green hydrogen both promise to deliver the necessary carbon reductions with a minimum of disruption. But if it sounds too good to be true…

Despite record support from the coal industry CCS was never able to make the promise of ‘clean coal’ come to fruition. And where it has become operational it has been expensive without being terribly effective.

And while green hydrogen has received a lot of attention for its potential in decarbonizing heavy industry it’s important to go back to the relatively low temperature needed in paper-making. If green hydrogen proves to be the saviour of heavy industry it will be heavy industry that plays a big role in setting the price (at least until the European Commission’s plan for a hydrogen distribution grid begins to come to fruition in the 2040s). The paper industry does not want to get in a price war with other heavy industries that will be absolutely reliant on the gas to achieve the necessary decarbonization. There are a lot of different studies about what the future costs of hydrogen will be but no independent studies are confident that green hydrogen will be a low-cost, ubiquitous energy carrier in the coming decades.

The paper packaging industry has had a very loose relationship with ‘sustainability’ over the years. Clearly, it has a good story to tell in terms of recycling. But it has tried to transfer that success into the fields of climate change and circularity with increasing enthusiasm at best, and with utter disdain for facts at worst.

Packaging solutions have been called ‘100% sustainable’ without mentioning emissions, companies have claimed to be circular while ignoring the linear flows of combustibles into its facilities and emissions out the other end and confusion has been sown between absolute emissions reductions targets and efficiency emissions reduction targets.

That approach will have to change as scrutiny increases about exactly how the 2030 and 2050 milestones will be met in the EU. Decisions made now by the paper packaging industry will have a big role to play in how expensive the transition is. Attempting to increase the efficiency of fossil-fuel assets that seem destined to become stranded assets is a false economy.

Decarbonizing the paper industry will not be done overnight but the technology is there to move much, much faster than the industry has done in the past. The legal and environmental arguments for moving faster than ever have never been clearer. The biggest question is whether the people who lead the n industry will act accordingly.

Digging deep Deep geothermal brings some considerable benefits – it can provide all the heat a paper plant might need 24 hours a day and seven days a week with no emissions at low cost for decades on end. The counterpoint is that it can take several years to develop, is not available everywhere and brings with it considerable upfront costs. A current project in the Netherlands will plumb depths of 6000m to provide heat for a paper plant as well as 15,000 homes in the region through a district heating network.

Heat pump hype The most promising solution for the decarbonization of the paper industry has to be the humble heat pump – either ground, water or air-sourced. With a Coefficient of Performance (CoP) of at least 3 and as high as 6 it doesn’t create heat as much as gather and condense it into a more useable form.

The paper industry doesn’t need very high temperatures (compared to steel or ceramics for example). Commercial trials of heat pumps running at 160 degrees are ongoing and designs are ready for heat pumps to achieve 200 degrees – more than enough for paper-making. The industry is working with industrial heat pump suppliers as part of their Energy Solutions Forum but heat pump pilots should be the absolute top priority and its slow development is frustrating to watch.

Packaging Europe | 11 |

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE CONSUMER: THE WAY TO A SUCCESSFUL OMNICHANNEL STRATEGY The omnichannel concept has gained traction in recent years. Certainly, the e-commerce side of retail has grown significantly, not least due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, while brick and mortar stores have also had to adapt. But what makes a good omnichannel strategy? What are the challenges involved, and what role can packaging play to ensure a smooth customer experience?

Elisabeth Skoda speaks to Elin Li, Business Development Manager at Iggesund Paperboard, and Uwe Melichar, president of the European brand and packaging design association.

Putting the product centre stage There is a big difference between what’s needed from an e-commerce pack and a traditional brick and mortar pack, as Mr Melichar points out.

“In an e-commerce product features and benefits have already been communicated online and no further information is needed on the pack while in brick-and-mortar stores the packaging has to sell the product.”

Well-packaged goods often have to be put in another box to make them ready-to-ship.

“This is an exciting challenge from a design point of view. Protection is key but the right dramaturgy for the unboxing process is also important. If you open the package and the first thing you’re facing is the return voucher or the operating instructions, it’s the wrong message. The product is the hero and should be dramatized and staged,” Mr Melichar adds.

A colourful and impactful package that stands out in the store could have its design ruined by adding a shipping label, or even a space for it.

“This gives us a hint on the disadvantages of omnichannel packaging. If you are trying hard to make a beautiful package shippable you may ruin the design, and if you put a perfectly constructed e-commerce package on the shelf it’ll be invisible and dull. Sometimes it may be better to have two separate solutions. I can imagine modular hybrid packaging solutions, where we solve the problem of having a box in a box by adding a ‘light’ pack element to upgrade a shelf-pack for shipping.”

Conversely, creating just one pack for all channels offers the advantage of not creating unnecessary SKUs, says Ms Li. “When you use the same packs for all your channels, you can ensure that you have a full crossover to support an omnichannel strategy, and thus

Elin Li

Uwe Melichar

are able to service customers whether they buy in the shop, place an order online and pick it up, or if they want to have it shipped home.”

Another challenge is the difference in supply chains. “With e-commerce, the pack goes through many more touchpoints. The more handling the more risk – it’s often the last mile of the delivery process where damage occurs.”

Ms Li underlines the challenge of keeping the product safe and points out that even if the product itself isn’t damaged, but the packaging is, it doesn’t leave a good impression.

“It’s really about understanding all different touchpoints that packages go through. For an optimal omnichannel strategy, you are developing a pack strategy that works for all channels at each point, working with a lot of data, and implementing that into the packaging strategy, so that at the end you will have a pack that supports whatever channel you choose.”

Branding strategies There are a lot of things that brands can do to support the shopping experience and convenience, and one of them is connection and transparency, enabling consumers to see in advance whether a product is available in store or can be shipped, Ms Li says.

“Another useful feature is to simplify returns, making sure that the box or bag can be reused. Consumers like a fuss-free experience. A good omnichannel strategy is about having the same brand experience throughout all your channels. For example, if a brand says that sustainability is important and talks about it in its branding, it needs to be shown in all of the packaging.”

It can be useful for brick and mortar and e-commerce to learn from each other, and newer, less established brands lead the way.

Packaging Europe | 13 |

| 14 | Packaging Europe

“If you open the package and the first thing you’re facing is the return voucher or the operating instructions, it’s the wrong message. The product is the hero and should be dramatized and staged.”

“We see a lot of online, digital native vertical brands, which have built a business model on selling on the internet. They then open a pop-up store or a showroom. They understand they need to be both online and in physical stores and are using data, with the purpose of increasing customer experience and brand loyalty,” she adds.

In simple terms, online shopping equals orientation, overview and price comparison. In brick and mortar stores, the focus is on inspiration, testing, trying on and sensual experiences, adds Mr Melichar.

“We have to look at the complete touchpoint map and the various customer journeys and options. To satisfy customers, brands need to play on both channels with the best possible instruments.”

Engaging packaging Balancing out product safety, functionality, aesthetics and sustainability is key when it comes to all packs, whether they are designed for shipping or for stores.

“Modularity and simplicity are key. In many cases manufacturers have no influence on the retail channel. Retailers are selling their products online and offline, there are resellers and major platforms in between brand and customer.

The more flexible the packaging, the easier it is to distribute,” says Mr Melichar.

Unboxing videos enjoy continuous popularity on social media. Unpacking should be like the opening act of a concert, Ms Li says.

“We already see many companies working with custom, branded transit packs, which gives that extra brand experience. Brands like Chanel are known for giving consumers a luxurious unboxing experience. Korean sunglasses brand Gentle Monster offers its customers an exciting, luxurious unboxing

experience that comes in layers like a Russian doll. It’s important to really think about adding a tactile experience and add different levels to unboxing.”

There are several examples of successful omnichannel packages in the market that Mr Melichar draws our attention to.

“Examples can be found at Beiersdorf with their ‘Nivea Care Box‘ or from the Austrian brand MAM that puts their small soothers and baby products in a cute silkscreen printed box for shipping. I also appreciate the efforts from Samsung.

They are using ‘ready to ship’ packages and for the big cardboard boxes they recently launched a competition, asking for the best second-life solutions.

People created 3D animals, a shelf or a magazine rack out of the empty boxes.”

E-commerce vs brick and mortar The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a return of packaging materials that were on the way out previously.

The return to the ‘to-go cup‘ and to single-use plastic plates, bags, boxes due to hygienic reasons and millions and millions of shipping cartons are creating enormous mountains of rubbish. But there are many examples showing the positive examples of packaging that can help entice consumers to shop ‘offline‘, Mr Melichar says.

“For example, think of the experience of entering a Lush store. The smell, the choice, the staging of the product and the service and checkout… no packaging needed. Other examples that add value for bringing customers back to the stores are luxury products like perfumes, champagne, confectionery or wine. There are many products that wouldn’t have any recognition without packaging. Their outer shell is part of the brand story and defines the product. These multi-sensual experience stories are hard to be told online.”

Packaging Europe | 15 |

Sustainability considerations Initiatives such as Terracycle’s loop can be part of an omnichannel strategy.

Currently, the scale is small, but there is certainly potential for growth.

“There is a huge potential in refill and return systems paired with services.

The English milk-man gives us the blueprint for more of those concepts. For example, in the UK ‘Milk & More’ presents a curated offer of fresh local sourced dairy products delivered to the customer’s door. ‘Packaging as a Service’ by Finnish company RePack offers resistant bags that can be used several times.

The offering includes cleaning and a free return service via regular mailboxes,” says Mr Melichar.

The future of omnichannel Ms Li anticipates developments in automation and AI, and possibly deliveries by drone that could push the industry forward.

“Looking towards Eastern Asia, the e-commerce and omnichannel world is a lot more developed there. For example, in some department stores in Japan, you can shop for lipsticks in the restroom mirror by trying them out through augmented reality, buy there and get them delivered to your home. You can buy products and have them delivered the same day, within hours, and that is probably something we will see coming more over in Europe. Packaging could support that.”

She points out that in the future, more and more brands will pursue omnichannel strategies and will also want a piece of the fast-growing e-commerce market.

“We will probably see more traditional retail going online, and conversely digital companies going more physical. It’s all about a seamless brand experience. Whether you buy in store or online, the brand experience should be the same. Above all, omnichannel is about having a marketing strategy and supply chain strategy to support the experience.”

Mr Melichar predicts that omnichannel will be the new normal, and that the boundaries between the different sales channels will blur.

“There are many good examples already. Amazon opens their 4-star stores and many retailers and brands coming from brick and mortar (like H&M or Adidas) already have functional and exciting online shops and are present on platforms. If they all manage to deliver the perfect match between showroom, n online services and inspiration, we’re basically there.” | 16 | Packaging Europe

UNPACKING THE ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION’S UNIVERSAL CIRCULAR ECONOMY POLICY GOALS

In January this year, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation published a set of Universal Circular Economy Policy Goals, with the aim of creating a common direction of travel in policy development for a faster transition to a circular economy. To find out what the goals mean for the packaging industry, we spoke with Carsten Wachholz, senior policy manager.

PE: Before we get into the guidelines themselves, I’d like to put them into context. How would you assess the current state of the circular economy in the packaging industry as it stands?

CW: A good starting point is that many sectors still think of the circular economy in terms of better recycling and waste management. That’s part of it, but it’s a bigger idea. The circular economy tackles the root causes of global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. It’s also about redesigning the entire system – not just particular products or materials.

One of the key insights from our work is that rethinking packaging alone is not enough – the systems the packaging items are used in are also key.

You often need to rethink the product and its delivery system to eliminate the need for packaging altogether.

So therefore, to talk about the state of the circular economy in the packaging industry may simply be too limited in terms of framing the challenge.

Because, in doing so, we can focus too much on substituting one packaging material with another, with the view of maybe increasing recycling.

Nevertheless, when we look at plastics packaging, for instance, this narrow angle has definitely led to an increased effort to phase out some of the most problematic categories, such as polystyrene, PVC and undetectable carbon black. We also see significant progress being made by businesses to incorporate recycled content in some types of plastic packaging.

When we look at the bigger picture, it’s about the challenge to implement design changes; increasing the recyclability of plastic packaging overall and shifting to more reusable packaging. Here, we have seen limited progress up to now.

And that’s why we favour a comprehensive circular economy approach, as promoted through our Universal Circular Economy Policy Goals, that looks at both the product and the underlying business model to either eliminate, innovate or circulate packaging for a specific purpose.

Packaging Europe | 17 |

PE: To the new guidelines then: What is their purpose, and what do you think could be achieved if they were implemented in full?

CW: Again, it starts with the notion that many stakeholders, both in the policy sphere and in industry, consider the circular economy to be more relevant than ever. As all the challenges I mentioned before – like climate change, pollution, biodiversity and economic recovery – are interconnected, the solutions must be too. Achieving this necessitates the creation of a shared language and understanding, otherwise we will fail to create a common direction of travel and fail to make progress on policy alignment. Our five Circular Economy Policy Goals have been created to support this.

Carsten Wachholz

| 18 | Packaging Europe

So, for each goal we have identified policy measures that could support the delivery of that goal, but of course it’s not a precise recipe. That needs to happen in a specific context, geography, or sector, and for that the paper invites collaboration between the different stakeholder groups, rather than laying out a prescriptive position or guidelines.

Ideally, if these goals were implemented in full, we would achieve better coherence of relevant policies between different governance levels and geographies. It could also reduce complexity on the regulatory side and transition costs if we manage to move major economic players in the same direction.

PE: Could you give us an overarching summary of the guidelines?

CW: We can start upstream of the value chain with goal number one, which focuses on stimulating the emergence of circular design for goods and services, but also for whole circular business models that keep inorganic and organic materials in use at the highest value possible.

This needs to be complemented by the systems further downstream in the value chain, which should move from a purely waste-focused perspective to a resource management-focused perspective in a way that preserves the materials and their value and reduces the need for virgin inputs.

Goal three is about getting the broader economic conditions right. To scale the circular economy so that it becomes the norm, businesses need economic incentives and regulatory requirements that move them away from linear models that are still currently dominating the system.

Finance has a key role to play, both from the public side but also enabling the private sector to make the right investments, and that’s what goal four focuses on.

Goal five is about becoming more practical and looking into the mechanisms that can support the mainstreaming of the circular economy principles into either existing or new policies. That goes across sectors and value chains, and requires collaboration between the public and private spheres to remove barriers, develop new policies and align on existing ones.

PE: Can you drill down into some of the key points and recommendations,

Finally, for goal five, this is about working together across the public and private sectors when developing roadmaps to eliminate packaging waste, and aligning ambitions for economy-wide reuse systems. It’s also about creating a common direction of travel for joint innovation agendas to at some point realize the vision of making all packaging solutions 100% recyclable, reusable or compostable.

especially the ones that relate to the packaging sector?

PE: Let’s talk about putting the goals into practice – how might this work

CW: These goals don’t provide precise recipes for each sector – they describe

in a structure like the EU, where a balance needs to be struck between national and federal governments?

key policy measures that support those goals. So, if we look at the first goal, this could include creating standards to harmonize packaging products and systems to facilitate collection and recycling across geographies. It certainly could also go into banning some of the most problematic packaging items or setting mandatory minimum levels of recycled content for specific types of packaging.

In terms of goal two, this would involve policies that aim to further driveup collection rates, mandatory separate collection schemes, deposit return systems that could also be included as part of a broader EPR scheme.

On making the economics work, I think this is the goal that is probably most underdeveloped, because it fits into the discussions around what kind of economy we want to have and how we tailor the conditions to it. In our view, this should obviously include disincentivizing non-circular outcomes through actions like landfill taxes and bans. It could also be about incineration gate fees, which in our view are not part of the circular economy, or a tax on virgin resources.

But it could also positively incentivize circular and other environmental outcomes, for example through greenhouse gas emission pricing mechanisms, and value-added tax reductions for reuse or recycling activities or equipment. This would certainly involve a shift away from subsidies for finite material consumption, and using public procurement to grow new markets for circular solutions.

On the investment side for packaging, we are probably talking more about markets outside Europe and industrialized countries, but there is a lot of need to create new instruments for blended finance mechanisms to pre-mobilize private capital for all the investment that needs to go into new sorting and recycling technologies and research funds.

CW: When it comes to the EU, we can build on a quite comprehensive circular economy action plan as part of the larger European Green Deal, and a lot of horizontal measures have at least been defined and are currently being mainstreamed into either existing regulations or into new policy areas, such as sustainable finance.

On plastics specifically, the EU adopted a plastics strategy in 2018 which outlined policy actions foreseen for the most relevant sectors, including packaging.

The Universal Circular Economy Policy Goals obviously call for increasing policy coherence and alignment across the different governance tiers. So, that’s starting from local, where a lot of collection systems are set up, to regional, national and federal level, as well as supernational and international discussions.

It’s a no-brainer for the EU single market to be at the core of the policy discussions on scaling circular economy solutions for packaging. And, rightly, the ongoing revision of the EU packaging waste directive aims at making packaging all packaging recyclable or reusable by 2030. And if you look at the emphasis that the Commission puts on design requirements, we think this is going in the right direction.

In addition, we also look forward to the upcoming guidelines on Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, because that lies within the remits of the EU member states.

Finally, we believe that the Universal Circular Economy Policy Goals showcase an integrated approach that can shape international policy response to, n for instance, a new UN treaty to address plastic pollution.

Packaging Europe | 19 |

‘DESIGN AUTOMATION IS ABOUT CREATING NEW JOBS’: A CONVERSATION WITH CHILI PUBLISH

Kevin Goeminne

The robots, it would seem, are taking over. Over the past few years, countless op-eds and comment pieces have been published on the subject of automation and the effect that this trend might have on traditionally manual occupations. Fin Slater spoke to Kevin Goeminne, CEO and co-founder of CHILI Publish, about the challenges and opportunities this shift could present for print software.

FS: Could you give our readers an overview on the current state of the

FS: For people who might be unaware, could you explain how your

print software market and also explain its history?

technology works?

KG: I think what has happened is that, over the past few years, a way of producing that was very conservative in terms of regulation and procedures has evolved a lot. In the past, I think the production of packaging was a very manual process, with a lot of certification and checklists before going to the actual production process. We believe that it doesn’t make sense any more to try to manually create all the different artwork that is needed for this process.

The reason for this is that the world has completely changed in the past ten years. In the past, I was maybe communicating in one language, in one market in which my brand was popular. Today, we’re in a globalized world where you need to create so many variations for the marketing on your packaging, because keeping it the same for one or two years just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Look at what’s happening with tobacco producers, for example. They need to be a lot more reactive to their competitors, in terms of things like colours, messaging, and feel. That’s where we see a big need for products like CHILI Publisher, and solutions in general, that can help companies to avoid manual labour in packaging production.

KG: Simply put, we simplify and automate graphics production. When we say graphics, we mean three things: packaging, print, and digital. There are two types of people who use our technology – brand owners, who buy our solution and integrate it with third party software like Esko Webcentre, and agencies who want to acquire the technology to build an application, like a tool that can automatically produce labels or a brand management platform.

FS: To put CHILI’s technology into context, could you give us an example of how it might work in practice? For example, how might a company that wants to produce collateral for a conference use CHILI publisher?

KG: A good example of a company that does this exactly is Phillips. They would think about the materials they need to go to a trade show. These materials would then be ‘templatized’, which is what we call converting and adding intelligence to an InDesign or Illustrator file. That template then knows how to respond to certain inputs – things like text, product choices, and certain selections. This will automatically create a press-quality PDF that can go to production.

Packaging Europe | 21 |

“I like to say ‘free the designer’. What we’re trying to do is create a community where a greater number of less professionally skilled users can come and consume smart templates.”

FS: Projects like producing print collateral are clearly in CHILI Publish’s wheelhouse, but are there any jobs that the technology is less suited to?

KG: What CHILI publisher doesn’t solve is creativity. Creativity is something that a lot of our partners manage – it’s their added value. When we’re talking about structural design or designing a new type of packaging, that’s not what you use CHILI publisher for. After you’ve decided all of that and had a creative person define the colours, look, feel, and messaging, that’s when we’re going to create a smart template in CHILI Publisher.

Because, what usually happens when jobs finish is these assets need to be resized, translated into a different language, or produced for a different market.

All of these things, in a regular production context, would use manual labour.

That’s where CHILI Publisher brings its smart template in – to help companies avoid doing the same repetitive jobs over and over.

“Like I said, we are not trying to replace any form of creativity – the thing that we are counting on our partners and customers to deliver for organizations.”

FS: From what I’ve read about CHILI, you seem to be passionate about ‘democratizing’ the printing process – in other words, ensuring that people with little or no graphic design experience can use the software effectively.

What’s the importance of this, and can we expect this trend to develop more widely within the printing industry in the future?

KG: I like to say ‘free the designer’. What we’re trying to do is create a community where a greater number of less professionally skilled users can come and consume smart templates. So, you’re absolutely right – we want to democratize things on that front, we want users within organizations to be able to come and generate complex artwork with a couple of clicks.

But, on the other side of that community story, we have our partners because, just like any good computer, somebody needs to program it. The same goes for CHILI Publisher – somebody needs to build those smart templates. That’s where our partners and agencies come in – they have the knowledge on how to create these smart templates.

FS: If this practice were to become more widespread, and work was further transferred from manual to digital means, is there a sense that we might lose an essential creative, human component?

KG: Absolutely. Like I said, we are not trying to replace any form of creativity – the thing that we are counting on our partners and customers to deliver for organizations. But, on the other hand, we also have to be honest – updating a title or a price is far from creativity. Automating this process makes a lot of sense and I think we’re being blind if we try to fight against it. Creativity will always be needed – especially in packaging design where brands want to stand out.

Design automation is about creating new jobs. We believe that we are going to upgrade the designer to a smart template-builder, and this is not about rendering existing ones obsolete.

FS: Looking forward, what can we expect from CHILI in the next five years?

Could you also place this into the wider context of the future of print software in general?

KG: To give you an example, Heidelberg recently created a web-to-pack design platform which it calls ‘BoxUni’. It’s a combination of a couple of technologies, of which CHILI Publisher is one. The idea is that you’re actually going to templatize everything – things like structural design and the design that goes on top of your boxes. So, Heidelberg has put a product on the market that brings packaging designers and printers together on one platform. It’s all about bringing those two worlds together. We look at ourselves as the glue that sticks the design and brand owner communities together – we sit right in the middle as a smart n templating engine that can facilitate those different streams.

Packaging Europe | 23 |

ALWAYS RECYCLED: NAVIGATING FLEXIBLE PACKAGING’S MULTIPLE PATHS TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY The diverse range of flexible packaging products has made it hard to find the best circular path for some of society’s trickiest waste streams, but a clearer way forward is starting to emerge for the industry. Steve Gillman speaks to Dana Mosora, workstream lead at the Circular Economy for Flexible Packaging (CEFLEX) project, about why the sector is now getting behind a strategy that backs both chemical and mechanical recycling.

T

he growing demand for sustainable production has seen the flexible packaging industry turn towards the circular economy to deliver environmental improvements without compromising on the functionality of its products – but developing the necessary solutions has not been so straightforward.

According to CEFLEX’s Dana Mosora there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution considering the diversity and scale of the industry, but it has now become clear that any path forward must include both mechanical and chemical recycling technologies.

CEFLEX is a European consortium of over 170 businesses, researchers and non-profits developing circular economy guidelines for the flexible packaging industry and they concluded that this requires a complementary mix of mechanical and chemical recycling technologies working together.

“The objective is to bring materials back into the economy at the highest value possible,” says Dana. “More mechanical recycling can enable higher value materials in Europe, but as much as we expand this there will always be a need for innovations that remake polymers.”

Mechanical recycling in Europe is already delivering robust secondary materials for many applications in film, injection moulding and compression moulding and, with the newly developed ‘Quality recycling Process’ by CEFLEX, higher quality polymers can be delivered for new demanding applications for non-food

Attero polymer recycling plant | 24 | Packaging Europe

flexible packaging. However, other regulated and more demanding applications like food and pharmaceuticals have struggled to find recycled materials with properties that match virgin feedstocks.

“Chemical recycling is today the only technology which is remaking polymers and therefore we can have recycled polymers with the right material quality for food contact,” says Dana.

A key part of CEFLEX’s latest position on the circular economy is to get the industry’s value chains behind all physical and chemical recycling solutions, from mechanical recycling, dissolution and solvent depolymerization to pyrolysis.

While most chemical recycling projects are still in an R&D phase, the consortium predicts that if there was industry-wide support for these new solutions it could eventually create the required supply of circular materials that mechanical processes cannot deliver. CEFLEX estimates pyrolysis alone could offer 1.5 million tons of recycling capacity in Europe by 2025.

Dana explains that CEFLEX’s new position is not about defining the exact amount of physical (mechanical and dissolution) or chemical recycling needed to achieve the circular economy for flexible packaging, but more about sending a market signal to speed up the sustainable transition for the industry.

“We need to enable these solutions to develop as fast as possible,” she says, adding that this is about incentivizing companies to build more mechani-

Dana Mosora

Quality check – staff controlling samples of dissolved polymers

cal recycling infrastructure and funding additional research into chemical recycling. “It’s about providing the security and incentivizing companies to make the right investments.”

Regulation roadblocks to overcome Another reason why CEFLEX released its circular economy position now is to help shape future EU policies. The European Commission is currently reviewing the EU’s packaging and packaging waste directive (PPWD) – a set of rules aimed at reducing the industry’s environmental impact and harmonizing national infrastructure.

Dana explains that it is crucial the EU keeps a “technologically agnostic approach” in order to give all recycling solutions a chance to contribute to creating a circular economy for flexible packaging, as well as preventing the industry going down the wrong path.

CEFLEX’s stakeholders are working towards a 2025 goal to establish collection, sorting and reprocessing infrastructure for post-consumer flexible packaging across Europe. That means they need to start scaling circular solutions as soon as possible, but that could be a risk without knowing what the EU’s legislative landscape might look like in a few years – and any misstep could not only be a costly endeavour, but also hold back the sector’s shift towards the circular economy.

“We need to align legislation and industry to move faster because we must act now,” says Dana.

The risk of a legislative misalignment originates from environmental fears that focusing too much on chemical recycling could incentivize a business-as-usual approach, which could then see flexible packaging waste streams remain linear.

The EU executive could interpret this as a threat to its new Circular Economy Action Plan, which hopes to halve municipal waste by 2030 with new supporting targets to reduce packaging waste, and limit some recycling solutions.

Dana understands these concerns but says CEFLEX’s latest position for flexible packaging is not about achieving the circular economy with mechanical and chemical recycling alone, but rather keeping these solutions in the mix.

“The very first thing the industry has to do, and it is doing it, is design products with recycling in mind,” she says, adding that this will only be achieved by also enabling the right infrastructure for collection, sorting and processing plastic packaging waste.

Collaboration key to scale If the industry and policymakers both back CEFLEX’s mix of chemical and mechanical recycling, as well as product redesign, it could go a long way in scaling up the circular economy for flexible packaging. And according to Dana, aligning the industry’s stakeholders behind a shared vision will remain one of the most essential factors in finding the most successful path forward.

“Together we have moved towards the circular economy faster than we had imagined when it all started a few years ago,” she says, adding that CEFLEX provides the platform to let its members learn from each other and speed up the adoption of solutions.

The coronavirus pandemic has also created more momentum for developing circular solutions together after home deliveries sparked a greater demand for flexible packaging and saw the industry’s desire to curb their waste streams grow. “We’ve seen so many examples of positive redesign for packaging to become recyclable in the last six to nine months,” says Dana.

A crisis often sparks disruptive innovation and Dana hopes CEFLEX stakeholders’ effort to double-down on sustainability will eventually see the “many possible solutions” emerge to create a circular economy for the industry.

“That’s also why it’s so important to keep the definition of recycling open, because innovation will continue to bring to us new solutions – and we have n to stimulate innovation,” she concludes.

Packaging Europe | 25 |

NATURALLY DONE: A DEEP DIVE INTO BIOBASED PACKAGING INNOVATIONS FOR 2021 Paul Jenkins

ThePackHub’s latest report tackles packaging innovation trends with a global view. The recently published Global Packaging Trends Compendium 2021 details more than 550 packaging innovations and is grouped into nine trend sections. The first to be tackled in the report is ‘Naturally Done’. Paul Jenkins, Managing Director, ThePackHub, looks at some of the highlights.

T

he Naturally Done trend covers the drive for the use of more natural substrates. These new material developments aim to find potential alternatives to plastic or discover ways to utilize naturally-based byproducts for packaging use.

There are many compostable, biodegradable and bio-based packaging initiatives coming to market worldwide. Many of the initiatives listed are still in development and not yet on supermarket shelves. The R&D projects may be two or three years away or may not even reach the end consumer due to lack of funding or not finding a workable commercial solution. Many bio-based materials are being used. Sugar cane continues to be the most popular, but we’re also tracking tomato fibre, whey, chitin, bamboo, mushroom, cacao beans, straw, seaweed, pasta waste and many more.

Without established industrial composting systems in place in most markets, the compostable sector is at a turning point. Mass adoption will only really occur when the infrastructure to deal with the packaging is fully in place. Home compostability is still relatively niche with most consumers not having the space or the will to participate. There are also concerns about compostable and biodegradable packaging contaminating existing recycling waste streams.

Cost may also be a significant barrier, with bio-based packaging often costing a lot more to supply than the price of conventional plastic-based products.

It requires a substantial investment for any brand or retailer to employ. We have yet to see many larger company examples introduced. The majority are small challenger brands and startups looking to stand out in the market for what is perceived as a more sustainable point of difference.

The latest in bio-based packaging innovation Typical of the innovations featured is dual-ovenable moulded fibre bowls made from sugarcane. Health brand Primal Kitchen is reported to be the first to commercialize a new, dual-ovenable moulded fibre tray based on US-grown sugarcane. Now part of Kraft Heinz, Primal Kitchen’s new line of bowls and skillets is available through retailers such as Thrive Market, Walmart, Whole Foods and Wegmans. The dual-ovenable bowls from Sonoco-owned Natrellis Packaging are made using raw materials sourced from within the US. Another use of by-products is discarded palm fibres converted into compostable food packaging material. A UAE startup is turning unwanted palm fibres into compostable food packaging materials. The country has a widely abundant Packaging Europe | 27 |

local palm leaf resource. Palm Co. has developed a process through which fibre is extracted from the leaves of palm trees. Water and latex is mixed into the fibres where it is then dried and moulded and coated with latex into shape. Latex is a naturally occurring resource that does not affect compostability. The material is estimated to compost in around 90 days.

Elsewhere, Estonian start-up Woola produces compostable bubble wrap from leftover sheep wool – an abundant resource that is usually thrown away.

As the quality is not sufficient for fabric production, Woola claims that 90% of sheep wool equating to 153 tonnes is thrown away in Estonia every year. Wool is a natural resource that regenerates every year and it is effectively available

for free. Sheep wool’s functional properties ensure that it is shockproof and has thermal insulation (for both heat and cold). It is also able to lock in moisture (up to 37% of its own mass).

US beauty brand Each & Every is making the switch from plastic with the launch of a new sugarcane pack for its line of natural deodorants. The main result of the activity sees a reduction in the company’s carbon footprint for its packaging. Each & Every is introducing sugarcane packaging made from a 100% plant-based and renewable resource, which it says is carbon negative.

Sugarcane actually absorbs CO2 as it grows, removing it from the atmosphere.

The sugarcane is fermented, distilled and dehydrated to convert it into a packaging material. The packaging can be recycled through kerbside collection.

More to come The Naturally Done trend is anticipated to remain buoyant beyond 2021.

It is likely that brands and retailers will continue to develop ‘natural’ solutions to meet their various 2025 deadlines.

The 2021 Global Packaging Trends Compendium comprises nine new packaging trends. It features a comprehensive assessment of more than 550 packaging innovations. It also includes interviews with 16 industry experts from around the world, featuring packaging experts from the likes of Mars Wrigley, Mondelez and Ocado, as well as Tim Sykes, Brand Direcn tor at Packaging Europe.

More information here: https://www.thepackhub.com/services/globalpackaging-trends-compendium-2021/ | 28 | Packaging Europe

Colour plays a crucial role in the world of packaging. According to findings by the Institute of Color Research, up to 85% of customers’ first impressions of a product on the supermarket shelf are based on colour alone. Achieving colours that stand out on the shelf and also in an e-commerce context can make a real difference in how well a pack performs. But how can this be achieved, especially in a context of increased sustainability demands, and what are the challenges that have to be overcome? Elisabeth Skoda takes a closer look.

FINDING THE RIGHT TONE: COLOURS AND INKS IN PACKAGING

J

ohannes Betz, Head of Academy at GMG Color, observes that on the one hand, colours are getting more saturated to attract consumers, but on the other hand, sustainability and design are getting more important, and this also has an influence on colours, materials and varnishes. The role of e-commerce is growing, which brings with it a change in the role packaging plays.

“How colour is used on pack is changing. In e-commerce, you could argue that packaging can be a lot more simplistic, as it’s already been bought, so shelf appeal isn’t so important. On the other hand, brands are very aware of how people see their products even after purchase, and so packaging has a very important role to play there.”

Avoiding expensive mistakes Colour has an important part to play when it comes to branding and brand consumer recognition, and a failure to recognize this can be costly.

“One of our customers changed the design of all of their packaging and realized that after printing some of the new packaging in Germany and some in Asia, the brand colour, which was key to brand identity, had come out completely different,” says Mr Betz.

An in-depth analysis of printers, print techniques and substrates at the start of the colour management process can help to avoid these sorts of errors.

“As a first step, we perform a detailed analysis on printers and print techniques, substrates and areas of focus. We help our customers to work out an in-house standard, and work closely with printers and pre-press houses, to achieve consistent colours in daily production.”

Mr Betz has observed an increased move towards digital print in packaging, and this has had an effect on the printing process.

“In segments such as labelling, digital print is already very established, and it is also becoming more widespread in corrugated board, folding carton and flexibles. This brings extra challenges, as shorter runs make it uneconomical to make tweaks on the press. It makes no business sense to for example print

1000 metres, but at the same time needing 500 metres to set up the press.

GMG solutions and services help to ensure consistent colour all over the world and increase efficiency in print production.”

Colour in an omnichannel world In today’s omnichannel world, packaging has to work hard not just to grab consumers’ attention on the shelf but also on the screen.

“Clever graphic design and colour impact is absolutely essential as retail competitive intensity increases. At its simplest, it is a visual representation of the brand and can trigger thoughts, feelings and emotions about a product directly impacting the purchasing decision,” says Deanna Klemesrud, Global Director Brand, Content and Promotions, Flint Group Packaging Inks.

“In order to help with this, at Flint Group Packaging Inks we offer comprehensive colour management support for our customers with our web-based VIVO Colour Solutions system. VIVO supports brands and printers alike to ensure brand colour consistency wherever a product is printed and whatever

Deanna Klemesrud

Johannes Betz Packaging Europe | 29 |

the substrate or print technology. This ink colour formulation search engine and support service is designed to increase the converter’s colour accuracy, press uptime and can reduce substrate and ink waste.”

The substrate challenge One of the major features when it comes to packaging printing is the wide array of substrates that are used, from different papers and boards, to plastic films and foils as well as recycled and biodegradable constructions. This brings with it challenges of colour consistency, drying and resistance properties, as Ms Klemesrud points out.

“At its simplest, colour is a visual representation of the brand and can trigger thoughts, feelings and emotions about a product directly impacting the purchasing decision.”

“The properties of the substrate used affect the end printed colour; the same red may appear different when printed on a paper-based material versus a film material, for example, due to the differences in absorbency of the substrates. Different materials also require different methods of drying during the printing process. Additionally, different substrates may require either primers, overprint varnishes, or both, to ensure longevity of the print on the pack and to ensure resistance through the supply chain into the retail environment and onto the consumer’s home. To ensure the highest print quality possible, printers and converters should always discuss their print aspirations with their ink supplier to ensure viability and that design is fit for success.”

Chemical substance restrictions Ink behaviour on different substrates may differ substantially, and given the different printing technologies, the performance requirements on the ink vary a lot.

“In the past, the requirements for the inks used on paper or cartonboard were usually related to the drying speed, penetration of the inks in the substrate or resistance against scratches during post-processing. Nowadays we have to take into consideration all the chemical substance restrictions that are being updated in various countries, and the suitability of the ink for

the end-of-life of packaging, i.e. repulping and recycling,” says Jose Novo, Key Account Manager, Packaging Materials Department, Liquid Ink Business Section, Marketing Division, Toyo Ink Co. “In the case of flexibles, different plastics present different adhesive properties. In addition, we need to add performance properties needed for lamination processing and, in some cases, for sterilization at high temperatures and pressure. Here, too, we need to give thought to the end of life, considering which disposal, recycling, or other treatment process the packaging will undergo.”

Sustainability and performance Safety and sustainability have grown in importance in recent years. Manufacturers have been progressively adopting safer chemistry in response to the emergence of chemical safety legislation, as Mr Novo points out.

“Apart from the elimination of certain ingredients following the latest legislation in different countries, this also includes inks with lower VOC content and reducing the carbon footprint. Advances have been made for example in highly pigmented inks that evaporate less solvent or water-based inks. However, thinking beyond the inks themselves, Toyo Ink has sought to improve the technology that reduces energy consumption during ink application, for example with highlyreactive UV-curable and LED-curable inks.”

While vibrant colours are of course important, increased attention is given to how inks perform when it comes to recycling. Ms Klemesrud points out that it is important to ensure that its technologies do not compromise the recycling process or recyclability of packaging in any way.

“We have developed inks which are designed for floatable and sinkable labels, assisting the recycling process, along with inks certified for the CADEL deinking system. We have also invested in developing inks with Material Health Certification from Cradle to Cradle for both our water and solvent-based ranges.”

In 2020, Flint Group also launched its TerraCode inks range, a series using sustainable raw materials.

“TerraCode is available in three chemistries suited to specific print requirements and is suitable for a wide array of paper and board and water-based film applications, it includes high water and grease resistant technology for the food service market, as well as a range of high-performance coatings, including direct food contact options, and offers excellent mechanical resistance, resolubility and print performance,” Ms Klemesrud adds.

It seems as though inks and colour management solutions are becoming ever more sophisticated to keep up with growing brand demands around the different sales channels without losing sight of sustainability requirements.

We are looking forward to seeing even more innovation in this space in the n coming months and years.

Packaging Europe | 31 |

ON SECOND THOUGHTS...

WHEN ‘RECYCLABLE’ IS NOT ENOUGH TO TACKLE GLOBAL PLASTIC POLLUTION

Dominic Hogg, Director of Equanimator and former Chairman of Eunomia, tells us why making plastic packaging recyclable will not address the problem of plastic pollution – and why the over-reliance on waste pickers to tackle plastic pollution in developing countries is problematic.

L

ittering of packages, and not just plastic ones, is a source of disamenity, or loss in value associated with its impact on an area’s appearance.

Littered items can be the direct cause of harm to wildlife and other economic damage. These values, in advanced economies, are non-trivial.

If we try to express them in a way which renders them comparable with, for example, the environmental benefits from recycling, then they seem to be higher by a factor of around a hundred, and that’s without taking into account the economic impact of plastics in the marine environment.

Approaches to dealing with littering need to appreciate the context in which this happens. In advanced economies, where households typically receive a waste collection service (albeit, still, of varying quality), then packaging from households has a good chance of being collected if it’s consumed in the home. The litter problem relates more to littering of packages linked to consumption that happens ‘in the open’, as well as during collection and transfer of waste, and in the way facilities are managed. Littering of (not just plastic) items consumed out of the home can be dealt with through use of sensible combinations of taxes, bans and deposit refunds, supported by requiring producer responsibility schemes to fund litter prevention and cleanup. That remains ‘work in progress’.

Outside advanced economies, there is often no waste collection other than informal activity that targets wastes that are of some value.

World Bank data from 2016 suggest that outside high-income countries, 44% of the world’s population has no formal waste collection service. All relevant studies point to the absence of such waste collection services as the primary reason for macroplastics flowing into oceans.

In these circumstances, all plastic packages have the potential to cause harm. It follows that where brands sign up to phasing out ‘unnecessary or problematic’ plastics, then across much of the world’s population, unless

| 32 | Packaging Europe

and until the means exist to ensure that the quantity finding its way into the environment is very substantially reduced, companies signing up to those commitments should cease using plastic packaging.

There is a school of thought that says ‘making items recyclable’ will solve the problem, even in places with no formal collection service. The line of thinking runs that the informal waste picker community already picks up items which they can sell because they have value: if items are made recyclable, they will acquire value; ergo, if we make items ‘recyclable’, waste pickers will ensure these items don’t find their way to rivers and oceans.

There are two flaws in this logic: first, waste pickers are not everywhere, and they do not intercept all items. Among the plastic packages most often found littered on beaches across the world are plastic beverage bottles and their caps, even though this form of consumer plastic packaging is the most easily recycled. Making something recyclable clearly doesn’t guarantee it ceases to be a problem. Second, the value of some items, even if they were made recyclable where they are currently not, is likely to be very low (consider the sachet made of a gram or so of monopolymer plastic). Relying on these being picked up for recycling as a strategy for tackling plastic pollution looks rather like hoping people remain so poor that these items are regarded as being sufficiently valuable to target for collection. If major businesses’ strategies for dealing with plastics amount to hoping for poverty to persist, they should be open about this.

Taken together, it’s clear that in the absence of comprehensive waste collection services, alongside a wider use of innovative deposit refund schemes (which would give greater value to packages without making the packaging itself expensive), the problem of plastic pollution will not go away. Providing better waste collection and management services will help address other problems, notably in relation to climate change and air quality. A concerted push from major global brands to support the development of these services is needed.

For a wide range of single-use items, the case for banning their use, with appropriate lead-in times, is already compelling. If rapid progress is not made on providing adequate collection services in places where there currently are none, then the only viable route for addressing plastic pollution will be to ban completely the use of single-use plastic packaging in all countries where such services n remain limited.

AN INTERACTIVE PLATFORM FOR THE NEW NORMAL The Global Packaging Innovation Forum provides a space for the packaged goods community worldwide to learn and talk about the innovation driving packaging technology forward. It’s a 365-day resource where you can catch up with the latest product launches, explore deeper content around an innovation or exhibit, discuss technology requirements, and network across the value chain.

Members can take part in upcoming panel discussions such as ‘Innovation in paper packaging’ and ‘Omnichannel challenges’ and catch up on previous sessions (such as our inaugural panel exploring the drivers of innovation in secondary & tertiary packaging) on demand.

Join the community (for free) at: PackagingEurope.com/GPIF

SPONSORED BY: