Packaging Europe Issue 17.1

VOLUME 17.1 – 2022

PACKAGING DESIGNED FOR RECYCLABILITY: WHERE ARE WE NOW? ROBOTICS – POLYMERS – INNOVATION FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION – 4EVERGREEN

Editor

Advertising Coordinator

Victoria Hattersley

Kayleigh Harvey

Journalists

Digital Analyst

Elisabeth Skoda Libby Munford

Syed Hassan

Digital Editor

Amber Dawson

Fin Slater

Junior Journalist Melina Spanoudi

Junior Editor Hannah Cole

VOLUME 17.1 – 2022

Operations Director Brand Director Tim Sykes

Sales Director Jesse Roberts

Production Manager

Senior Portfolio Sales Manager

Rob Czerwinski

Dominic Kurkowski

Digital Design & Production Assistant

Portfolio Sales Managers

Meg Garratt

Matt Byron & Guy Helliker

Head of Marketing & Events Operations Audience Development Manager Kamila Miller

Simran Budesha

Packaging Europe Ltd

4

8

17

23

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 Twitter: twitter.com/PackagingEurope LinkedIn: uk.linkedin.com/company/packaging-europe YouTube: youtube.com/PackagingEurope

3 4 8 11 13 17 23 26

30 32

© Packaging Europe Ltd 2022 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)

Editorial Victoria Hattersley Design for recycling Recyclable packaging across the board – are we there yet?

Robotics The rise of cobots: Tackling challenges in packaging Smart packaging AIPIA & Packaging Europe’s strategic partnership Innovation for consumer protection Engaging consumers in the process Polymers The challenges of commercializing biobased materials 4evergreen Exploring the circularity of fibre-based packaging Wider View – Truvant How can contract packaging services help streamline the supply chain and grow customer value?

Zentrale Stelle The German Packaging Act: Two years on On second thoughts... What happened to the smart packaging we were promised?

EDITORIAL |

W

elcome one and all to our first issue of 2022. It has been a difficult couple of pandemic years but, while we perhaps cannot rely on the veracity and good intentions of those that lead us, there are still some grounds for a level of optimism if we turn our attention to non-governmental organizations, industry leaders and associations. In the packaging sector, nowhere is this best exemplified (professional bias declared) than in our annual Sustainability Awards, submissions for which officially closed on February 14th (though our content overlord Tim Sykes may grant an extension if you beg…).

What previous Sustainability Awards have shown us is that throughout the industry we see a strong and – I am willing to believe – genuine dedication to collaborating on workable solutions that will enable us to achieve the balance of moving towards circularity whilst reducing our carbon impact. That is not to say we can turn back the clock and undo what has been done; mitigation is now the order of the day.

Over the coming year we will be addressing the myriad dimensions of sustainability through an expanded year-round program of virtual and in-person live discussions, featuring Sustainable Packaging Summit events at Anuga Foodtec, the high-level summit in Lisbon, FachPack, and a combined smart packaging / sustainable innovation horizon event with our new partner, the Active and Intelligent Packaging Industry Association. Through this program we will increasingly turn our gaze beyond Europe. Consistent with this global perspective, we have kicked off this year’s virtual Sustainable Packaging Summit program with a panel exploring the arguments for a UN Treaty on plastic pollution with defined circular economy goals (available to watch on our YouTube channel).

Victoria Hattersley Senior Writer

And speaking of circularity, in this issue of the magazine Elisabeth Skoda addresses the topic of design for recycling. We learn about the strides that have been made in making a range of packaging materials more easily recyclable. In a separate piece, Elisabeth interviews some key members of the 4evergreen alliance about the efforts it has been making to further the circularity of fibre-based packaging.

I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce the two latest members of our editorial team, Melina Spanoudi and Hannah Cole. In this issue, Melina hears from a range of voices in the robotics sector about the growing importance of cobots for manufacturing. Meanwhile, Hannah speaks to members of the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Polymer Research IAP and Covectra about packaging for consumer protection and the importance of engaging consumers themselves in this process.

Last but (arguably) not least, I have been delving into the waters of polymer innovation. Representatives from Milliken Chemical, UK Research & Innovation and European Bioplastics were kind enough to help me understand the challenges involved in commercializing some of the ‘newer’ biobased polymers – and what proponents of these materials are doing to promote their wider use. n Until next time, stay well and stay safe.

Victoria Hattersley Victoria Hattersley vh@packagingeurope.com | @PackEuropeVicky

Packaging Europe | 3 |

RECYCLABLE PACKAGING ACROSS THE BOARD – ARE WE THERE YET? Recyclability is one of the cornerstones of a circular economy and has shifted into focus not least due to a proliferation of EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) schemes, the EU’s green deal and changing laws that penalize packaging that’s not recyclable or reusable and doesn’t incorporate recycled content.

In recent years, the industry has made some strides towards making packaging materials more easily recyclable. We’ve seen progress across materials ranging from flexibles to paper packaging, and a big impact can be made already at the design stage. Elisabeth Skoda reports.

Romain Cazenave

R

ecycling volumes from Germany’s dual system have increased by 8.4% in 2020, the Central Agency Packaging Register has announced, and minimum standards for determining the recyclability of packaging has inspired various innovations.

“Marketing has discovered ecological packaging. Looking at recycling-friendly mono-material packaging that also saves material, the minimum standard has made an impact. If it’s a material composite that is tricky to recycle that only looks environmentally friendly because it’s brown, it is a dead-end when it comes to the circular economy,” explained Gunda Rachut, Chair of the ZSVR, at the organization’s annual press conference with the German Environment Agency.

Similarly, in its recyclability guidelines, CEPI recommends only using as many non-paper constituents as are necessary to fulfil the expected functions of the packaging. If non-paper constituents are needed for the intended use, the separation of the different elements should be as easy as possible. Plastic lamination layers should not readily degenerate or break into very small pieces in the pulping stage.

Of course, paper and board and corrugated as well as rigid plastics such as PET have made great strides to be recyclable. It’s in the area of flexible and semi-rigid packaging that the most work needs to be done.

Keeping it simple with corrugated

Tubes have traditionally been challenging to recycle, but in recent years, we have seen some interesting developments moving this forward. Hoffmann Neopac has recently been granted RecyClass approval for its Polyfoil® MMB mono-material barrier tube.

Peter Bossert, Head of Material Development for Hoffmann Neopac, points out the importance of understanding the entire value chain to design innovative and sustainable products that are also competitive.

“Factors include the function of the packaging, barrier properties, compatibilities with aggressive bulks, consumer convenience, design for recycling, carbon footprint, safety such as child resistance, price, design for reuse or repair, reduction of complexity. Sustainable packaging has become far more complex than mere materials agnosticism – and that’s something Neopac took to heart when developing its Polyfoil MMB solution”

Consumers often regard paper-based packaging as more sustainable, but recycling can be challenging, especially when it comes to composite materials. To address this, the European Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers (FEFCO) released its Corrugated Packaging Recyclability Guidelines in the autumn of 2021, aimed at optimizing recyclability via design parameters for paper and board packaging.

For example, the FEFCO guidelines identify the addition of plastic to corrugated packaging as having a negative impact on reprocessing and companies’ economic margins. FEFCO says that the industry would prefer to avoid all plastics, even biodegradable varieties. It provides the design metric of keeping plastic content to 5% of pack weight as a maximum, with a 3% weight content being the preferred amount. | 4 | Packaging Europe

Plastic challenges

A tube designed for recycling To create a fully recyclable tube, it was important to understand existing recycling streams, how a tube gets sorted and whether it would end up in an HDPE rigid stream or a PP rigid stream.

“We developed Polyfoil MMB according to RecyClass design guidelines: melt flow index, density, PE/PP content over 95%, ash content (mainly TiO2 level from white colouring) minimalistic artwork with EuPIA (European Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers) conform nontoxic low migration printing inks and sandwiched metallization to still enable correct PE/PP NIR sorting into the corresponding recycling stream. We also incorporated MDO PE (mono-directional-oriented PE foil) technology to ensure barrier performance against water vapour and oxygen, while still being HDPE based and not compromising on HDPE threshold,” explains Mr Bossert.

Challenges to be addressed Creating a recyclable tube closure came with its own set of challenges, as did making the tube itself. As the tubes get sorted into the HDPE/PP rigid bottle stream, low MFI (melt flow index) materials had to be used wherever possible during compression/injection moulding for producing the tube shoulder or closure – places where higher MFI ranges are typically used.

“The cap had to be composed of the same material as the tube (HDPE/ PP). PE closures are more sensitive to stress cracking than PP. Considering this, an informed choice was made to design a new line of HDPE closures,” adds Mr Bossert.

Normally, aluminium foil provides barrier properties in the tube, and a foil range provides metallic optics.

“We used metallized MDO (Machine Direction Orientation) foil technology to get the required barrier properties and the metallic optics without using aluminium, which would hamper recyclability.”

With the structural loss of the aluminium foil in combination with weight reduction concepts, a shift to maximize the threshold of stiff HDPE grades was needed to enable comparable haptics of the tube.

“With a double barrier concept, we ensure protection to valuable packed goods, but also slowed down migration from inside out, which has multiple benefits, like long shelf life, low weight loss and reliable concentration of the API, protection of the adhesive interfaces which is beneficial for bulk compatibility and increased robustness of the structure,” says Mr Bossert.

Successful design for recycling for flexibles Flexible packaging is the workhorse of the packaging industry. According to figures from CEFLEX, flexible packaging packs more than 40% of food products in Europe while using 10% of all consumer packaging materials.

Recycling rates are growing but clearly lag behind rigid plastics.

Romain Cazenave, Packaging EMEA Marketing Director at Dow, states PET bottles as an example of plastic packaging with a high recycling rate.

“PET bottles are a mono-material product, which means waste quality is well-defined. Flexible packaging, on the other hand, is popular due to its efficiency, enabling the packing and promoting of large quantities of product with little material. For the same reason, it’s also the cheapest.”

To achieve the optimum flexible material, different polymers are combined, such as polyester for the optics, stiffness and heat resistance, polyamide for toughness and polyethylene for sealing.

“This has lowered costs and the carbon footprint of production. But the challenge was, how can we maintain all these properties and add recyclability?” asks Mr Cazenave.

Packaging Europe | 5 |

Dow worked with partners to develop resins that are fit for purpose, tweaking machine design and polymers to achieve the desired properties, while not losing sight of the carbon footprint.

“Previously, for flexibles, the winning ticket was the lower cost. But today the carbon footprint & recyclability are where the focus lies. So, we want to keep the efficiency of flexibles regarding CO2 both in terms of cost and the circular economy.”

He is optimistic that innovation will cause an acceleration of the adoption of these new technologies.

“In 2022 we will reach a different scale of recyclability and the use of recycled content. We’re working with CEFLEX and other organizations to make sure that everybody adopts the same development rules so that flexible packaging waste becomes an attractive material and there are more incentives to sort and recycle it. The better you can monitor the quality of the waste, the less challenging it is to recycle. We are aiming to reduce the spectrum of our waste to make it more valuable.”

From pouch to pouch Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics, in collaboration with HP Indigo, Reifenhäuser, Cadel Deinking and Karlville, have recently announced the successful delivery of their first pouch-to-pouch mechanical recycling concept.

“The first PE-rich pouch was designed for recyclability with up to 5% EVOH in the total structure for barrier functionality, and Dow’s resins provided a remarkable stiffness-toughness balance, low-temperature sealability, adhesion

| 6 | Packaging Europe

to extruded barrier layers and excellent bubble stability for the second PE-based pouch we used a high-performing solventless adhesive to enable the lamination of the MDO-PE film to the PE-film containing recycled resins from the first pouch. We also wanted to make sure that the material could run on the machines at the same speed, and we achieved that,” explains Mr Cazenave.

Collaboration is key Collaboration across the value chain is important, from polymer design all the way to collection, sorting, and recycling.

“Many companies were involved in this project, which was a challenge, but the collaboration was excellent. It wasn’t enough to prove that the pouch was theoretically recyclable; we needed to prove that it could be recycled and made into a useful application, and we achieved that.”

Mr Cazenave explains that for this project, the new resin was coextruded on a Reifenhäuser EVO 9-layer blown film line.

“The project showed that it was possible to both produce recyclable packaging according to Recyclass and CEFLEX guidelines and use recycled materials in high-value applications through collaboration across the value chain.”

Scope for growth Mr Cazenave foresees fast developments and adoptions in the coming years.

“I’ve seen the industry moving at a pace I’ve never seen in 20 years, so I’m optimistic that we are moving in the right direction. Of course, there are still some economical hurdles to overcome, and we’re fighting against an extremely optimized solution. After all, polyester technology has been optimized for 30 years. The new technology is not yet at this level of optimization, but it will come, and will grow fast.”

He concludes that legislation is set to be a major driver behind this growth.

“For example, in the EU, 100% of packaging needs to be reusable or recyclable by 2030. Major brands have already committed to doing so by 2025. There is also a healthy tax incentive to make plastics recyclable.

Investment in new lines is growing. Some time is needed to adapt, but as the design and production of packaging develop, and sorting technology becomes more advanced, investment increases significantly. It’s important for flexible packaging to get closer to rigid packaging in terms of sorting n and recycling rate, and we’re moving in that direction.”

Packaging Europe | 7 |

THE RISE OF COBOTS: TACKLING CHALLENGES IN PACKAGING Melina Spanoudi spoke to five industry leaders to learn more about how robotics can have a positive impact on the packaging industry and the role of collaborative robots in achieving that.

F

or a long time, robots have played an important role in addressing some of the key issues in packaging, and the past few years have presented some unique and unprecedented situations that the industry has had to adapt to. But what are the crucial packaging challenges that robotics can help address today, and which processes are robots able to add the most value to according to the current trends in automation?

Stuart Coulton, Marketing Manager at Omron UK & Ireland, highlighted labour shortages as one of the central issues that robotics can help to tackle. “The pressing short-term, medium-term and long-term challenge is labour shortages,” he said. “I think that the lack of available workers is ultimately what any other challenges boil down to.”

From aligning items on a conveyor before they are packaged, to placing them in trays during the filling stage or into boxes following the primary packaging process, robotics can add value at various points of a product’s

| 8 | Packaging Europe

packaging journey, Coulton argued. “What we’re starting to see when we get towards the end-of-line packaging type applications is that cobots are starting to become really prominent,” he said.

Collaborative robots, or cobots, are created to work alongside humans, so safety is a feature that is inherently part of their design, Coulton explained. He

“Cobots increase productivity and they help companies to adapt to changing demand and seasonable peaks because they are so versatile.”

“Cobots are strong and can perform repetitive tasks, offering another ‘pair of hands’, allowing the human operator to add higher-value flexibility.” went on to add that cobots are often used in applications like palletizing, where they are required to complete repetitive tasks that involve lifting heavy objects.

“Right now, we see companies facing challenges with labour shortages, increased local and global competition and pressure to adapt to changing demand,” commented Mark Gray, Country Manager at Universal Robots.

Gray suggested that collaborative robots can provide an answer to the problem of labour shortages. “Companies are using our cobots to help fill the labour gap and those that adopt new automation technologies are also better equipped to attract and retain a skilled workforce,” he said. “Cobots increase productivity and they help companies to adapt to changing demand and seasonal peaks because they are so versatile.”

As the name suggests, collaborative robots allow operators to work alongisde robots in physical proximity, explained Michael Schuepbach, European Sales Coordinator Food Market at FANUC EUROPE. “Programming has improved significantly in recent years and, in addition to tablet controls, motion sequences for FANUC cobots can be programmed simply by the operator moving the robotic arm by hand,” he said. “As cobots can also be set-up to immediately stop when

sensing a human operator in its vicinity, they facilitate a much closer collaboration between the operator and the unit.” He explained that “this can reduce both the footprint and the cost of the overall system.”

Cobots are strong and can perform repetitive tasks, offering “another ‘pair of hands’, allowing the human operator to add higher-value flexibility on complex, or fast changing situations,” argued Malte Schlüter, Global Director F&B / CPG / FMCG / Life Science, Global Industry Solutions Division at Mitsubishi Electric. According to Schlüter, where cobots present challenges is when it comes to how fast they can operate.

“The focus in packaging operations is productivity,” he said, explaining that it’s “mainly on brownfield sites where robots are needed to gain a higher degree of production line flexibility.” He added that the “issue with retrofitting industrial robots into existing production lines is a lack of space for the physical fences and traditional safety light curtains,” and explained that for such applications, the company has created hybrid industrial cobots. “They can operate close to humans at typically slow cobot speeds, without added external safety cages, so have a small footprint,” he said. He went on to add:

Packaging Europe | 9 |

“By adding an advanced safety laser scanner for example on the smart trolley, the hybrid cobot can also operate at industrial high-speed when a human is not present. It will stay at its optimal speed until a human is detected by the laser scanner. Different to industrial robots, the hybrid cobot will then slow down in stages based on human proximity.

“It uses a precise torque sensor to control it in the last stage of slow movement and will stop completely if it meets an obstacle. Before that it will operate in cobot mode with cobot speed and safety and continue to work alongside the human. As soon [as] the operator leaves this safety zone, the hybrid cobot will return to high-speed productivity.”

Gray said that the more lightweight cobots that exist can be redirected as needed in production lines. “Easy programming means that a new task can often be set up in less than one hour,” he explained. “We have seen the development of over 370 components and application kits for our cobots,” he added.

“Innovative grippers, computer vision and machine-learning systems allow robots to pick up a wide range of objects even in unstructured environments

“While the cost efficiency of robots has improved in recent years, it remains a significant barrier for many organizations.”

Mark Gray

| 10 | Packaging Europe

such as a bins or totes,” Gray said. “Easily integrated SKU scanning and the ability to pick up pouches or products of nearly any size or shape are making work in the packaging industry simpler, faster, and more efficient.”

Today’s cobots are easier to program and redeploy, so SMEs face less of a risk when investing in new equipment, Coulton argued. Schlüter echoed this point, adding that “The rise of cobots, smart trolleys and laser scanner safety combined with modern simple visual programming such as Mitsubishi Electric RT VisualBox offer easy access to the technology, high flexibility and limited investment costs.”

“ROI calculations often show a payback after 12-24 months, and with extended robot lifecycles and predictive maintenance, running costs are lower too,” Schlüter said. “That’s why the modern robots and cobots fit perfectly to every enterprise size.”

Another way in which businesses can use cobots but keep the costs down is by leasing them, Gray suggested. He went on to add that this “usually delivers great return on investment”.

But the fact that robots have become more affordable in recent years does not mean that they are accessible to every enterprise that may benefit from the flexibility and reliability of a robot. Schuepbach explained that “While the cost efficiency of robots has improved in recent years, it remains a significant barrier for many organizations, especially those that are considering investing in automation for the first time.” He went on to add that “Ultimately, customers buy cells, not robots, so the cost of the peripheral equipment must also n be equally as competitive to deliver an attractive ROI.”

Michael Schuepbach

AIPIA AND PACKAGING EUROPE CONNECT TO FAST-TRACK SMART PACKAGING DEVELOPMENT AIPIA (the Active and Intelligent Packaging Industry Association) and Packaging Europe have entered into a strategic partnership aiming to accelerate uptake of smart packaging innovation across FMCG at every stage of supply chains and retail.

U

nder the terms of the partnership, Packaging Europe will be responsible for organizing and running the annual AIPIA Congress – the flagship event for smart packaging – as well as working with AIPIA’s pool of experts, to bring news and commentary about the active and intelligent packaging landscape to a larger audience. Meanwhile, Eef de Ferrante, managing director of AIPIA, and his team will continue to grow and develop AIPIA’s activities as an association to support the sector.

The collaboration comes at a time when smart packaging solutions are more urgently needed than ever. From eliminating food waste, fighting counterfeiting and market diversion, driving supply chain efficiencies, brand protection and consumer engagement, to increasing recycling rates, there are countless spaces where active, connected and interactive packaging innovation can have a transformative impact. Together, AIPIA and Packaging Europe intend to support this transformation.

“For several years we’ve regarded AIPIA as a hugely important voice in the world of packaged goods,” remarked Tim Sykes, Packaging Europe’s brand director. “Having collaborated closely with Eef over several years, we’re thrilled to formalize this partnership. By uniting AIPIA’s expert knowledge of the smart packaging sector with Packaging Europe’s wide value chain audi-

ence and journalistic resources, we believe we can deepen understanding of the value-adding capabilities of technologies – and speed up their assimilation into the marketplace.”

“This is a great step forward for AIPIA,” explained the Association’s managing director, Eef de Ferrante. “Packaging Europe is a perfect fit for us. It is committed to the development of the latest technologies and innovations to drive the packaging sector forward and has a finger on the pulse of the industry. Its reputation and knowledge, as well as expertise in areas such as sustainable packaging, plus its extensive network, bring strength and diversity to our business. The resources we now have access to will help make our Congress and other events stronger and enable us to take AIPIA to the next level.”

Packaging Europe will host the next AIPIA Congress in November 2022 in Amsterdam and will be rolling out soon a year-round smart packaging channel, featuring news, commentary, and multi-media content covering the cutting edge of active materials and coatings, NFC/RFID, printed electronics, smart codes and augmented reality.

In addition, AIPIA welcomes Tim Sykes as a member of its Advisory Board, enabling Packaging Europe to play a full and active part in the n development of the Association.

Packaging Europe | 11 |

| 12 | Packaging Europe

INNOVATION FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION

A changing landscape of consumption means that packaging security solutions are increasingly required to work harder – and be smarter – to protect consumers. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly altered the way we browse and buy products, with an increase in e-commerce translating into more opportunities for counterfeiters. We speak with Dr Tobias Jochum from the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Polymer Research IAP and Terrence O’Neill from Covectra about how engaging consumers in their own protection via packaging may be key to addressing these challenges.

A

ccording to research by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), more than 50% of counterfeit goods seized at EU borders are from e-commerce streams. “These channels tend to be leaner; product moves and inventories turn over more quickly, which can impact the opportunities your supply chain team have to audit and examine products in transit,” explains Terrence O’Neill, director of business development at Covectra, a company offering serialization-based solutions for product security.

Supply chains are expanding, becoming increasingly complex, and are under extreme pressure. This means that companies must toe the line between meeting expediated consumer demand and ensuring consumer protection. The evidence suggests that, despite best efforts, counterfeit goods are making it onto the market. But with the rise of novel, globalized, and digital avenues of consumption, there are simultaneous opportunities for packaging innovation that makes the most of both familiar and emerging solutions to protect consumers.

While the risk to consumers may be growing, so too are opportunities for including consumers in the process of product authentication. Supply chains are liable to change, especially in times of global uncertainty, but the endpoint remains the same: the consumer receives the product. According to O’Neill, “including the consumers in the authentication process is crucial. It is

the last chance to prevent a consumer from potentially being harmed by an illicit product.” Consumers are the final gatekeepers, then, in the sequence of securitization that products – and packaging – undergo as they move through the supply chain.

Dr Tobias Jochum, researcher at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Polymer Research IAP, agrees: “For me, this is the most important step.

Up to now, the end customer has rarely been involved in the authentication process. In my opinion, comprehensive product protection can only be guaranteed by a system that enables verification of product authenticity from the producer to supervisory authorities, such as customs, wholesalers, and retailers, all the way to the end customer.”

Hidden in plain sight: security behind simplicity Therefore, companies are emphasizing the role of consumers themselves – perhaps previously a missing link – when developing solutions for consumer protection. This is a balancing act; there are some key considerations to account for when involving the consumer.

“In order to give the end user the possibility of product authentication, the methods must be simple and understandable, take only a few seconds Packaging Europe | 13 |

Consumers could lose faith in a brand due to a data breach caused by an anticounterfeiting solution, even if the product is authentic.

of time and not interfere with their privacy,” says Jochum. “Complicated measuring devices and extra equipment for product authentication must be avoided at all costs.”

Consumers are increasingly familiar with the technologies being incorporated into packaging solutions. For example, the use of QR codes on packaging is already popular for adding value through extra content like tutorials for makeup application or nutritional information about a food product. These are recognizable and, on the surface, simple – all the consumer needs to do initially is scan them with a smart device.

“The solution needs to strike a balance by being simple for the consumer to use and understand the results, as well as having technology running in the background that effectively raises entry barriers to counterfeiters such as artificial intelligence,” O’Neill adds. For brands, what happens between a consumer scanning a package and receiving confirmation of its authenticity is significant. There needs to be a complex process of validation behind the scenes that maintains the simplicity for the consumer, but that holds up against the evolving methods of counterfeiters.

The consumer scanning a product may log their ownership of a product like a luxury wine in a centralized database, for example, which Jochum notes “dominate product authentication”. However, these are not invulnerable: “I also see the use of central databases as a challenge. Since IT security and data protection problems are pre-programmed when they are used they are a popular target for attack, and how user data is handled is not always transparent. Manufacturers disclose their sales data, business relationships and supply chains to the database operator.”

Involving consumers requires some reconfiguration for brands in terms of managing the complexities of supply chains and data exchanges without compromising consumer experience in both the short- and long-term.

Consumers could lose faith in a brand due to a data breach caused by an anti-counterfeiting solution, even if the product is authentic.

Unique features and multiple futures To bring consumers fully into the fold of packaging security, brands need to observe the trends already emerging in the sector. “Until a few years ago, there was a strict separation between physical and digital product authentication tools,” Jochum explains. “For some time now, I have been observing a trend that combines both worlds to guarantee improved protection against counterfeiting. The security features generated in this way are often characterized by a uniqueness comparable to the human fingerprint.”

According to O’Neill, Covectra’s StellaGuard label solution “combines smart technologies with universal brand protection” with a technology that,

as Jochum describes, mirrors a human fingerprint. The solution involves a “unique serialized QR code” that works alongside “a three-dimensional image of holographic stars embedded in a random pattern inside the label.

The holographic stars are distributed at varying depths and positions within the substrate and are unique within each label,” apparently making them incredibly difficult to replicate. Consumers can scan the QR code using a smartphone to access information on the product’s authenticity via Covectra’s AuthentiTrack cloud-based solution, with applications across sectors ranging from apparel to pharmaceuticals.

Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Polymer Research IAP’s SmartID project, which is led by Jochum, also uses a “unique and authentic” label that can be read on smart devices. However, the aim of the SmartID project is to allow authentication without the need to connect to a database that could potentially undermine security. Currently in development, the research group is working on codes that are also cost-effective and offer enhanced protection where authentication is essential for harm reduction, such as when verifying whether a medical mask has the correct and certified features to be effective against COVID-19.

“I see a future trend in decentralized (offline) product authentication, i.e., verification of product authenticity without the need for a database system,” Jochum suggests. “For this, all the data required for authentication must be on the packaging. This can be realized, e.g., with information carriers with a lot of storage capacity, which can be printed on the packaging. The packaging then contains the database entry for this product.

Packaging Europe | 15 |

“Such a process offers several advantages. First, it is more customer-friendly, since no Internet connection needs to be established. Second, offline verification avoids various IT security and data protection challenges. Third, everyone in the entire value chain can then check the product for authenticity. Fourth, it eliminates the high costs associated with installing, commissioning, and maintaining databases. At the same time, this leads to a reduction in the CO2 footprint, because technologies with high energy requirements such as blockchain are not needed.”

Going forward, for O’Neill, smart packaging is key for fostering the relationship between consumers and brands through the lens of security. “Today, as the Internet of Things (IoT) continues to create connections in so many different aspects of our lives, smart packaging continues to offer companies opportunities to align and integrate broader commercial objectives to increase revenue, reduce costs, along with the risk mitigation benefits of consumer protection.

“It enables organizations to tell their stories and differentiate themselves from their competitors, to build trust with the brand, and demonstrate how seriously they take the duty of care to their customers through their risk prevention, authentication, and monitoring efforts,” O’Neill adds. “For consumers, it’s a convenient, transparent way to gain more insight into the product and company through the packaging solution that can simultaneously educate and help to keep them safe.”

While O’Neill is “reluctant to even offer a guess” as to future trends in packaging security, he refers back to “the consumer experience, how their expectations change and how technology evolves to meet those needs”.

New and exciting innovations, O’Neill suggests, could come from other segments: “Virtual reality (VR) is just getting its foothold in entertainment, | 16 | Packaging Europe

gaming, and social media. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that future anti-counterfeiting solutions will use VR to enhance the consumer experience and improve product protection? Perhaps consumers could virtually travel along the supply chain the product took to reach them. Could a VR response centre provide better support to help consumers inspect product to address suspicions and uncover counterfeits? I am very hopeful and n excited about these types of possibilities to protect consumers.”

RETHINKING POLYMERS: THE CHALLENGES OF COMMERCIALIZING BIOBASED MATERIALS

There are several newer classes of polymer that have the potential to challenge traditional fossil-based materials and reduce the carbon impact of plastic packaging. But commercializing these can be a process of many years and there are a number of barriers to overcome, as Victoria Hattersley discovers.

T

oday’s packaging market is, as we know, still largely dominated by polyesters like PET and polyolefins like PE and PP, which offer almost infinite recyclability, sterility and excellent barrier performance. Can these ever really be replaced with biobased materials?

Perhaps. There is an increasing awareness that polymers such as PET, PE and PP can all be made from biobased feedstocks to create what many would see as more ‘sustainable’ versions of these polymers (depending, of course, on what metrics you are measuring ‘sustainability’ by): PET, for example, can be made from sugar cane (Coca-Cola’s plant bottle is a famous example) and PP can be made from a number of waste oils. These are often known as ‘drop-ins’ as they have the same material structure and properties as conventional plastics.

“PET doesn’t care at the end of the day whether it is made from sugar cane or another biobased material but it has an inherently different carbon footprint depending on the monomer source,” says Scott Trenor, Principal Scientist at Milliken Chemical. “When it comes to package design and polymer choice, many different factors are at play. What does the package need to do? Does it need a good water barrier? CO2 barrier? Does it need to be flexible or rigid? The materials that are added to boost package performance, its shape, size and thickness will also determine how recyclable it can be at the end of life.”

The carbon question: Is biobased always the best option?

It might seem like a no-brainer: surely a biobased feedstock for polymers has to be better than using ever-more harmful fossil fuels. In many cases this would be correct, but it’s not always as simple as that and sometimes it pays to challenge our preconceptions. We need to consider the bigger picture, and that includes looking at the agricultural methods themselves.

“The issue is potentially less about the specific polymer type and rather about how it is made,” says Paul Davidson, Challenge Director - Smart Sustainable Plastics Packaging at UK Research and Innovation. “While deploying biomass as a feedstock uses atmospheric carbon rather than extracting fossil carbon, if modern agricultural methods lead to fossil carbon emissions (through energy, fertiliser, transport etc.) that are greater than the atmospheric carbon captured in the resulting material (compared to producing the same amount of material using fossil carbon feedstocks) then it doesn’t give you an overall lower carbon footprint.

It’s a complex topic. A recent LCA methodology developed by the European Commission could even be said to tip the scales in favour of fossilbased plastics. According to Oliver Buchholz, Head of Communications at European Bioplastics, it neglects the ‘negative impact’ on the environment of the extraction of fossil resources and ignores the ‘key advantage’ of Packaging Europe | 17 |

bio-based products – their ability to remove biogenic carbon from the atmosphere, sequester and store it into products.

“A highly questionable and scientifically controversial issue is given great importance in the LCA methodology: Indirect Land Use Change (iLUC). It’s based on mere model calculations that vary greatly due to the lack of standardized or harmonized guidelines. In order to have a fair methodology, there is an urgent need to also include indirect effects of fossil-based plastics, and to also have a look at positive indirect impacts. Furthermore, the methodology compares mature and immature production systems without any differentia-

tion. By not acknowledging these differences and potentials, the LCA methodology willingly supports the status-quo and stifles innovation.”

If true, this last point would certainly be a concern for the European bioplastics industry. Without continuous innovation it is hard to envisage a point where biobased polymers might come to dominate the market.

But the carbon emissions linked to processing and manufacturing biomassderived materials do need to be factored in. Another point to be considered is the potential for technologies that can reduce the carbon impact of conventional fossil-based polymer manufacturing. A number of global companies are

“PET doesn’t care at the end of the day whether it is made from sugar cane or another biobased material but it has an inherently different carbon footprint depending on the monomer source.”

| 18 | Packaging Europe

working on alternative polymer production technologies to the conventional fired cracking process. This could potentially allow for low CO2 polymers to be manufactured from fossil sources. These variables make carbon impact comparisons very challenging.”

And often, inevitably, it’s not about carbon so much as it is cost. “If we think about biobased monomer sources for traditional polymers, it’s more a cost and use discussion as to whether brands want to pay for biosourced materials,” says Scott Trenor. “At the current scale the biobased PPs and PETs are just more expensive and are not as widely available.”

The question of scale: the challenges of commercializing ‘newer’ polymers Let’s move on from the well-established polymers to newer materials entering the market. It can be hard to pinpoint exactly what we mean when we talk about ‘new’ or ‘novel’ polymers. More prominent examples of these include polylactic acid (PLA), a biopolymer developed from renewable resources like corn starch or sugar cane; or polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), which are polyesters synthesized using oils from the seeds of plants like canola or soy. But whichever material we are discussing, there are many challenges to overcome when it comes to commercialization.

“Moving from concept to market introduction is challenging for any new material, with many hurdles to overcome including scaling up production, the technology needed to process the material, and how the material performs and is managed through the supply chain and at end-of-life,” says Paul Davidson.

“Substantial market interest and uptake in any new polymer is also important, as

well as increased feedstock availability. Given the scale of demand for plastics, the market would prefer to have multiple sources for the same grade of polymer to ensure competitive pricing and supply resilience.”

“If we look at newer polymers like PLAs and PHAs, there’s a chicken and egg issue,” explains Scott Trenor. “Often the large brands can’t use them because they aren’t available at scale; but they won’t be available at scale until the demand is there.”

And again, there is also the ever-present issue of pricing… “From a market perspective, one of the key challenges for novel biopolymers certainly is the price,” says Oliver Buchholz, Head of Communications at European Bioplastics. “However, this also applies for bioplastics in general. Still too often it’s the cheapest price that sells and this is usually the fossil-based option. The criticism against bioplastics as being too expensive provokes the counter-question of whether conventional fossil-based plastics aren’t just simply too cheap.”

Given such roadblocks, it is perhaps not surprising that the market share of bioplastics is still only around 1%. That being said, there are now several large brands trying to create the demand. Nestle waters and PepsiCo, for example, have made commitments to PHAs to grow the market size but it is always going to take time – often years or decades – to scale any process. Another company, Danimer Scientific, has also announced it will be investing in PHA scaling. On the PLA side, over the past few years we have been following the various industry collaborations with NatureWorks on its PLA bioplastics. In addition, at the end of last year Total Corbion announced the launch of Luminy, ‘the world’s first commercially available chemically recycled PLA’.

Packaging Europe | 19 |

Another emerging material at the centre of much discussion in recent years is polyethylene furanoate (PEF). This is a biobased plastic made from fructose and bio-based MEG which, it is claimed, offers higher barriers to carbon dioxide, water vapour and oxygen than even conventional plastics. As yet, this has not been introduced to the market but many are interested in its potential.

“During 2021, several announcements had been made that production capacities [for PEF] will be established,” says Oliver Buchholz. “Thus, we expect that by 2026 we will be able to see it produced at economic scale.”

There is also plenty of innovation going on in more ‘niche’ areas. Notpla have developed a seaweed-derived coating for paper and board as an alternative to conventional plastic laminates and Xampla have created a plant protein material that performs like synthetic polymers but decomposes naturally and fully. Home-compostable laminates are also slowly becoming more widely available.

Yet compostable plastics are still viewed by some with a certain amount of skepticism. The issue here is twofold: first, whether compostables could ever offer sufficient mechanical properties to provide equal product protection to traditional plastics. The second challenge comes down to end of life: the majority of recycling systems still aren’t set up for compostables so if these kinds of materials end up in the recycling stream there are concerns about the possibility of contamination, or how well biodegradables perform in industrial composting.

But according to Oliver Buchholz, any such concerns are misplaced: “There is a widespread lack of acceptance in the waste infrastructure, which in many cases is based on false prejudices regarding the performance of, for example, biodegradable plastic in industrial composting.”

Rethinking polymers means systems change It comes down to this: we have been using the same kinds of polymers for so long that all our infrastructure – sourcing, production and recycling – is built around and optimized for them. To break out of this market reality is certainly possible in the longer term but it means changing the entire value chain on a systemic level; perhaps even abandoning the emphasis on cost as the guiding principle. It also means tackling the problems of land availability and feedstock supply.

“I would advocate for a system-change approach that embraces reuse and refill as priorities, and also explores opportunities to decarbonize polymer production – regardless of the polymer type,” says Paul Davidson. “But of course we also do need to ensure that any changes we make are cost competitive if plastics packaging is to be part of the just transition – particularly given its role in reducing the carbon impact of the products it is made to protect.”

And finally, we should reiterate that there is never a simple case of one material being ‘good’ and another ‘bad’. Fossil-based plastics will continue to have their place until biopolymers with similar protective properties can be developed on a wider scale. We should always bear in mind that the greatest concern to people and the environment is wasted resources. We are never going to reach a perfect situation in which we can say ‘Circularity achieved: let’s move on to the next challenge’. Rather we should think of the task of reducing the carbon impact of plastics as a continuous balancing act, factoring in the impact of raw materials, production, constant review of recycling infrastructure and more besides. It’s a constant n evolution, not a roadmap with a clear destination in sight.

Packaging Europe | 21 |

EXPLORING THE CIRCULARITY OF FIBRE-BASED PACKAGING The 4evergreen Alliance was set up by CEPI, the European association representing the paper industry, to further boost the circularity of fibre-based packaging. Elisabeth Skoda spoke to Eija Hietavuo, who is 4evergreen chair and also SVP sustainability and environment at Stora Enso, Jori Ringman, director General, CEPI and Alexey Vishtal, senior fibre-based packaging specialist at 4evergreen member Nestlé to delve deep into the alliance’s work and the challenges and opportunities for fibre-based packaging on the way to a circular economy.

ES: What were the reasons behind forming 4evergreen and what are the main goals?

EH: The three of us were there when this alliance was initiated in 2018 and there were a number of reasons for this. The Single-Use Plastics (SUP) directive was being initiated and there was a lot of confusion in the paper and board industry. CEPI was interested in creating a joint discussion and getting the whole value chain together. Nestlé took the initiative and brokered a deal with CEPI to start a series of workshops.

The SUP was one topic but it was also about existing systems and how disruption in the plastic market is creating a change in the overall EPR system. About 15-20 brand owners, converters and material producers joined initially and this led to an additional two workshops with the final consensus being that we needed an ongoing platform for discussion.

ES: How does this alliance complement CEPI’s activities?

JR: In two important ways. First, CEPI is unusual as we have tradition of working in innovative ways but when we want to achieve systemic change – what 4evergreen is all about – we have no choice but to create an alliance with critical players along the lifecycle working with us. The system is too big for one organization, even the multinationals.

The second is that even before 4evergreen CEPI was a circularity champion; we performed high and aimed still higher but like everyone we have our blind spots. We are all used to doing things a certain way and don’t think we can change this so having a diverse perspective from alliance partners helps to recognize these blind spots.

ES: Alexey, what is Nestle’s role?

AV: As a food company we hold the weight of circularity on our shoulders so we need the full value chain in action to create something that works not only on paper but in practice and is economically feasible. Of course fibre-based packaging is high on our agenda because it is renewable and has a relatively high recycling rate so it might help us to achieve our targets.

For us, the main reason behind joining 4evergreen is to make sure that when we introduce innovative materials they find their way into the circular system and help us work towards our commitments. Our role is to make sure we are taking the same path as other value chain members.

ES: What progress has been made in reaching 4evergreen’s main goals?

EH: Last year was the first year of action rather than planning. We have grown from around 20 to 30 or 40 companies from different parts of the Packaging Europe | 23 |

value chain. The first thing we set out to do last year was market mapping to get the same baseline for everyone in the alliance and understand what works and what doesn’t. Because of the pandemic it took longer than planned but we were very thorough. We looked into existing fibre flows in Europe and what the projections were for the future. Together with McKinsey, who did the research, we worked through the different areas and prioritized how we wanted to work. Parallel to this, since the second half of last year this was crystallized for different work streams and we have a specific area for innovation to fill in any gaps that were identified.

JR: Paper is readily recyclable with a high recycling rate (currently at 85%) so we are definitely starting from a strong place but the real challenge is informing and guiding the consumer through the different regulatory environments in internal markets. What we have to achieve is: 1) develop guidance on ideal system across Europe; and 2) to have clear labelling and marking developed by 4evergreen so in diverse situations we can persuade consumers to do the right thing. There CEPI can offer something as well because we have a strong network of national associations.

ES: Are there any notable developments you have observed to enable fibre-based packaging where it hadn’t been possible before?

AV: I can only speak from Nestle’s perspective but we must be clear that complexity changes from one application to another: an ice-cream wrapper might be easier to replace than coffee packaging, for example. We have seen not specific changes but rather changes in how pulp and paper companies are working on fibre-based packaging materials. There are more diverse options in terms of barriers, polymer coatings, lamination and methods of papermaking. But it boils down to finding the right application for the product and ensuring the safety and the functionality of the packaging should not be compromised; otherwise we are actually going against circularity principles.

ES: Are there any plans to boost the percentage of fibre-based products?

AV: At Nestlé we use all types of packaging materials that could help us meet our circularity commitments. We also have a commitment to make 100% of packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025 and reduce virgin by | 24 | Packaging Europe

a third. Fibre-based would be key here because recycling rates are quite high in Europe but you can also find paper recycling in Asia, South America and Africa. It is also of largely renewable origin. I want to re-emphasize that for us food is a precious commodity so we must provide the best protection. Now and then you have to compromise for functionality but with all of the improvements we see we can close this gap and fibre-based might be an important driver for us moving forward.

ES: Are there any specific examples of fibre-based packaging innovations?

AV: We are quite active in the introduction of recyclable solutions.

You might, for example, have seen the Nestlé YES! bar in recyclable wrappers. There are quite a lot of challenges to launch such materials because you need to provide water and oxygen barriers, etc. Introducing paper solutions is challenging because we don’t always know what level of complexity there might be in a given market.

ES: Delving a bit deeper into 4evergreen, can you give an overview of the new packaging design collection and sorting guidelines?

EH: We have separate sets of guidelines. We have the recyclability assessment protocol related workstream and then the design for recycling guidelines, collection and sorting and the innovation workstream. These overlap but when we talk about the guidelines specifically there has been a lot of work done at the materials level but with all of these it’s important that we have the retailer or the brand owner on board. It needs to be quite granular, so looking at the base materials used but also different types of packaging. We have started with Phase 1 and we don’t know how far we want to go but it needs to be something that is usable.

Similarly, when it comes to the collection and sorting there are the EU frameworks so there are moving pieces that need to be worked on in collaboration with policymakers etc. We need to ensure that whoever brings packaging to the market will know that, if they go though certain recyclability testing that package is for the market.

ES: Alexei, how does your working with 4evergreen tie in with Nestlé’s commitment to make 100% of its packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025?

AV: Fibre-based packaging is important but we can’t focus only on material innovation. We have to look into alternative distribution models and this is not possible without and end-to-end approach. Nestlé welcomes the cooperation of 4evergreen because it takes in all aspects of the process, from production to the consumer, collection and sorting.

Only when all piece of the puzzle come together can we have the right systemic approach that addresses all the challenges we face.

ES: Finally, what are the next steps for 4evergreen?

EH: We share an ambition which is systemic and transformative. We are beginning a new way of working with a more agile approach so there is a lot of hard work ahead but lots of rewarding achievements as well. I would like to welcome everyone reading this to whom we are relevant to think about joining us because we need all the like-minded companies together.

AV: There is a way of being innovative and organizing collaboration that can help to solve big societal challenges. Fibre-based packaging can be part of the solution and there are plenty of other big societal issues that n 4evergreen can also address.

JR: We have been working on giving guidance in circularity for more than 20 years. But when it was CEPI doing this alone it remained more of a recommendation that people often didn’t engage with. Now we are working with the whole value chain on a common consensus so it feels very different.

ES: There are challenges around recycling fibre-based products in different EU countries. How will you deal with these?

EH: One of the things we have found from our research is that certain things work better in certain markets. We have to try to promote certain ways of working but also be mindful that in Europe there are things that are changing and working together we can influence some of those. 4evergreen is great because it’s diverse but we also try to work with the other systems that are changing, for example the plastics industry. In order to have a fully functioning system we have to collaborate even with competitors to get it right.

Packaging Europe | 25 |

HOW CAN CONTRACT PACKAGING SERVICES HELP STREAMLINE THE SUPPLY CHAIN AND GROW CUSTOMER VALUE? What are today’s realities for CPG companies along the supply chain and how can contract packaging services help them approach these in the most effective way? Victoria Hattersley spoke to Steve Sena, Vice-President of Business Development at packaging services provider Truvant, to find out.

C

PG companies face many complex challenges when it comes to bringing their products to consumers. These range from the practical (e.g. how supply chain complexity can impact efficiency) to the environmental (e.g. designing packages that promote circularity while avoiding waste) and more besides.

This is where the contract packaging, or co-packing, service comes in.

Co-packing companies can fulfil many services, from something as simple as adding bar codes or labels to handling the entire packaging value chain, from product and packaging development, production to inventory management, filling and distribution. Truvant, formed in 2020, through bringing together multiple copackers with a wide scope of services, provides CPG companies with a full range of end-to-end packaging solutions including supply chain consultation, packaging design (including eco-design), logistics, e-commerce and more, in addition to producing and/or packaging the actual product. Here, we are going to look in a more granular way at just four of the biggest challenges Truvant hears about from its clients and some of the ways they can address these.

1. GROWING SUPPLY CHAIN COMPLEXITY Steven Sena tells us this is probably the most common problem he hears about from customers. Getting a product safely to the store shelf involves an incredibly complex web of packaging processes starting right from the package design, material procurement and moving through production and packing (involving a combination of automation and manual labour) through logistics and finally to the end consumer. All of this has to be delivered in sometimes very stringent time-frames, particularly given the growing demand producers are facing for just-in-time deliveries and ever-greater product choice.

“Complexity is the dominant challenge our clients face,” says Steve Sena. “Stock-keeping unit (SKU) proliferation has infected nearly every CPG as they seek consumers in a multitude of retail channels and markets (each requiring a different package). Also contributing to SKU proliferation is the variety offered in flavours, colours, sizes, features, etc. This complexity has hampered the ability to accurately forecast demand for manufacturing of each SKU several months out, thus creating a scenario

Despite these factors, customization is a high return marketing investment and adds more sales, so it’s necessary in today’s retail environment.

| 26 | Packaging Europe

where stock outs are common or slow-moving SKUs are taking up valuable warehousing space.”

Added to this, the growing taste for customization creates even more SKUs for brands to manage (Steve Sena highlights bundles, giftsets, variety packs and in-store displays, and this is just the start).

“Despite these factors, customization is a high return marketing investment and adds more sales, so it’s necessary in today’s retail environment.

Customization typically involves much less volume to build, so leveraging automation is difficult to do as bespoke operations are by nature highly manual manipulations. This is an entirely different approach that has to run alongside the automated, high-volume production lines.”

For Truvant, building a supply chain that is efficient despite all these complexities means creating the right balance between all these factors to enable ‘the right product, in the right format, in the right place, at the right time to delight the consumer’. Increased automation is of course an inevitability; Steve highlights that collaborative robots are getting smarter and more adaptable. In future we can expect to see greater interconnectivity between robotic processes, AI tools and deep learning software in order to build more predictive supply models and Truvant is opening an innovation lab to help its customers and operations manage this paradigm shift.

These increasingly globalized supply chains also add logistics complications. This being the case, Steve believes it is imperative that the industry

finds a way to de-couple the manufacturing of goods process and the packaging process – the latter of which often happens at the end of the manufacturing production lines. This, he says, ‘kills agility and flexibility’ since it is based upon forecasted demand several months prior.

“From that point forward, the supply chain is like moving popcorn around the world amplifying the storage space and transportation lanes. We want to put packaging closer to a real demand signal, in which turnaround time is mere days instead of months. Isn’t it better to move kernels around the world and pop it where it’s needed (and customized to the consumer’s liking)?.”

2. THE GROWTH OF E-COMMERCE While the Covid-19 crisis has certainly accelerated the e-commerce boom as more and more people have turned to home deliveries for both essential and non-essential items, this is really only the continuation of an ongoing trend. How can brand owners navigate the increasingly important world of e-commerce, and what role does the packaging supply chain play here in facilitating this?

“E-commerce is a whole new channel that changes the supply chain from case/pallet handling and transport to individual item handling and transport,” says Steve. “This impacts the packaging requirements to ensure the product is protected before reaching the consumer.”

This requires more innovative package design (wine bottles that fit through the letterbox are just one example); in part it comes down, as

Packaging Europe | 27 |

we have mentioned above, to more sophisticated automated packaging processes on the factory floor itself to unlock labour efficiency and meet demand for speedier deliveries.

There are many examples of how a co-packing company such as Truvant can help companies optimize their packaging and supply chains for e-commerce.

Steve highlights the potential of ships-in-own-container (SIOC) as “an efficient method of delivery whereby the packaging is sturdy enough to survive parcel shipping without another layer of outside protection (e.g. corrugate shipper).”

The result is a more practical, lower cost and, most importantly, environmentally sustainable solution.

3. MEETING SUSTAINABILITY OBLIGATIONS We know that every CPG company has to play their role helping the world meet its carbon reduction targets and move towards a circular economy.

The question is how? There are so many factors to be considered, from materials used, to package design, labelling, production methods, delivery and so on, ad infinitum.

“There are two stories to be told here,” says Steve Sena. “One is ‘cost’, which is dominant in the US, and the other is ‘compliance’, which is dominant in the EU. Sustainable alternatives have frequently not reached a scale yet that reduce packaging material costs. However, other sustainability efforts can both lower costs and benefit the environment. An example of this might be reducing the overall cube of a package – which then correlates to smaller cases, smaller warehouses, more cases/pallets on a truck, less trucks on the road. We also promote the use of cellulose-based materials, which are inherently sustainable and biodegradable.”

He does, however, stress that generally speaking Truvant takes an agnostic approach when it comes to materials; it all comes down to the specific requirements of the client and their products. There is not – and will never be – an optimally sustainable solution that fits every single use case.

There has been increased interest in the value of reusable packaging and we have seen some innovative solutions from brand owners over the | 28 | Packaging Europe

past year or so. However, uptake is still not as high as many would hope and the Covid-19 crisis – which has placed an understandable emphasis on hygiene and safety – has further slowed down the ‘reuse revolution’.

What does Steve think the long-term outlook is for reusables?

“If the consumer is willing to pay more, then anything is possible.

However, reusables is a difficult challenge because of the reverse supply chain involved. We think a more promising alternative is re-fillable solutions, where consumers are provided replenishment consumer goods in sustainable, even spartan packaging to re-fill their bottles, cans, dispensers, jugs they already have at home. We also feel that shipping density is important, or higher active ingredient concentrations. There are many ways to improve how products are delivered to stores or direct to consumers.”

Truvant is working closely on a highly innovative 3D-formable paper solution to replace plastic blister and clamshell packaging formats and hopes to bring its solution to market in early 2022.

One relatively new innovation Steve is keen to highlight as a ‘game-changer’ is 3D-formable paper. Made from 100% primary fibres, this can be bent and manipulated to allow for a much wider range of creative paper packaging options than previously available. It enables, he says, customizable 3D designs on packaging and – importantly for packagers – can be used on existing thermoforming equipment to produce trays for food packaging, saving them additional investment. Truvant is working closely on a highly innovative 3D-formable paper solution to replace plastic blister and clamshell packaging formats and hopes to bring its solution to market in early 2022.

4. THE ‘RISK’ OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION And this last point brings us on to another major consideration for the packaging value chain. While we might say that digital transformation is something that everyone in the industry must embrace, there are still many – manufacturers, for example – that are reluctant to make the necessary investments.

Admittedly, the initial outlay of such a total paradigm-shift can be large: even though there are increasing numbers of novel packaging materials that can run on existing packaging lines, there are inevitably going to be costs involved in full digitalization of the entire supply chain. For Steve Sena, the impetus for this transformation should come from the CPG companies themselves.

“Transformational change has to be a top-down priority in CPG companies.

There are a lot of legacy costs, real estate, personnel, equipment already in place to make classic supply chains work. Changing that to a leaner, agile, sustainable offering is perceived to be wasteful and risky, unless you have experience and know what you’re doing (Truvant does!). Governments can restrict plastic content or truck driver hours,but only ‘creating a TRUe competitive adVANTage’ in the marketplace will promote change for visionary companies – then everyone else has to play catch-up.”

Indeed, we might think that the biggest risk for companies along the packaging value chain long-term actually comes from not making those investments.

are so many to choose from today, but not all of them will provide the same kind – or indeed quality – of service. So how can CPG companies choose the right solution provider for them?

“If their project is a one-time, limited scope project requiring manual labour, there are thousands of small, regional contract packagers that would love to do the work,” says Steve. “Making a gift set, or building a club pallet are good examples. If you are looking for a partner to be a critical element of your supply chain with sustained volumes and unique equipment requirements, not many firms can do this well or at scale. Especially if you want this to happen across multiple geographies such as the Americas, EMEA, and APAC all delivering the same solution at the same level of quality and service.”

And finally, what questions should brand owners be asking prospective service providers to ensure they are the right fit, or that they can truly deliver on the claims they are making?

“Don’t wow me with slick PowerPoints and nice diagrams….let me see your operations!” says Steve. “Let me talk to your references! I would also encourage brand owners not to simply seek out a reduction in costs because every single one of them want to sell more product –so look at your problem through that lens. Who can help you sell more products to n more people in more places?”

FINDING THE RIGHT CO-PACKER If companies are considering using a co-packing service to address some or all of these challenges, it’s worth taking time to find the right one. There Packaging Europe | 29 |

THE GERMAN PACKAGING ACT: TWO YEARS ON

Dr Bettina Sunderdiek

In Germany, implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR) is assured by the Verpackungsgesetz (the Packaging Act), which was introduced two years ago. The Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister (Central Agency Packaging Register – ZSVR) is tasked with registering those bearing producer responsibility as well as monitoring further ecological objectives. Elisabeth Skoda spoke to Dr Bettina Sunderdiek, Head of Communication and Press at Zentrale Stelle, about the effect the German Verpackungsgesetz has already had on the market two years after its introduction.

ES: How does the German Verpackungsgesetz, the Packaging Act, align

BS: The Packaging Act requires companies under obligation to register in

with European legislation and EU recycling goals? How does it tie in with extended producer responsibility?

ES: What is the story behind the Verpackungsgesetz in a nutshell?

the LUCID Packaging Register. They have to register with their master data and with the brand names of the goods they place on the German market.

In addition, they have to report their packaging volumes in the register every year. The PROs also report the packaging volumes that the companies took responsibility for. This way, the German Packaging Register can monitor if producers meet their obligations and realize their producer responsibility.

The Packaging Act also imposes much stricter requirements on auditors who attest reports on packaging volumes for large companies, so-called ‘declarations of completeness’. They too must register in the register of auditors, which is a division of the Packaging Register.

The register itself is public and creates visibility about who fulfils their producer responsibility. You, me, competitors – anyone can go to the online register to see who has registered and is fulfilling their producer responsibility.

BS: The concept of EPR has a fundamental problem: free-riding. The market

ES: How would you summarize the objectives of the Verpackungsgesetz?

BS: The concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a European concept. It means that producers should prevent packaging, reuse it, or bear the costs of recovery. In Germany, the Packaging Act ensures that this concept is implemented, but it goes beyond the European recycling targets. We, that is to say the German Packaging Register, are often asked about our experience – and we are happy to share insights on our activities, to provide information about what we have achieved and what we have planned for the future. The Packaging Act is also being updated in line with European legislation.

did not work sufficiently and it lacked the financial power to ensure that packaging waste was recovered and recycled. In Germany, the EPR scheme for packaging currently consists of nine competing PROs. Many companies had not met their obligations concerning their producer responsibility. Some producers did not have a contract with a PRO at all, others had only paid for part of their packaging to be collected and recycled at a PRO. This brought the whole EPR scheme in Germany to the brink of bankruptcy more than once, most recently in 2014. Companies did not pay, or paid very little, but PROs still had to recover packaging – this resulted in losses of around 200 million euros per year. It is no surprise that things could not go on that way.

The German Federal Government had to act, and it set much stricter rules with the Packaging Act.

ES: Could you talk us through these more stricter rules? | 30 | Packaging Europe

BS: The Packaging Act was designed to bring transparency and fairness into the market and should create a high-quality level of recycling. It levels the playing field for companies and PROs because it lays the groundwork for taking action against breaches of the law, for example for not registering or for not reporting packaging volumes. After all, only a financially sound market can be effective.

Another important goal of the Act is to minimize the impact packaging has on the environment. To this end, the Packaging Register publishes a minimum standard for determining the recyclability of packaging every year. This minimum standard helps to determine how much of the packaging can actually be recycled, i.e. the proportion of recyclable material. The Packaging Act also aims to increase recycling quotas and the share of recyclates used in packaging. And it promotes new recycling techniques.

ES: What is the Packing Register’s role in all this?

BS: The Packaging Register is a foundation established under the Packaging Act. It is a federal authority with statutory duties. Since 1 January 2019, the Packaging Register has been the central unit of control in the packaging waste management market. As such, the Packaging Register monitors the obligations of producers about their extended producer responsibility, and the obligations of PROs regarding recycling quotas. It also helps to ensure competition among these PROs. The Packaging Register’s legal and technical supervisor is the Umweltbundesamt, the German Environment Agency.

progress in recycling. In 2019, recycling of packaging volumes increased by 13% compared to the previous year. In the case of plastics, the rise was even higher at around 50%.

There is also progress in recycling-friendly packaging design. All of the parties along the value chain are moving forward. Companies are very important in this development, because in the end it is companies that decide how eco-friendly packaging is. The minimum standard for determining the recyclability of packaging sets an example on a European level. The same can be said about the online register itself. The bottom line is that the Packaging Act and the LUCID Packaging Register have created a positive n dynamic on the market.

ES: After two years with the new packaging legislation in force, what has been achieved? What have your observations been with regards to compliance?

BS: We have achieved quite a lot: the LUCID Packaging Register was established to create transparency, and it works. As of today, there are more than 200,000 registrations. The number of producers who meet their obligations has increased significantly. The number of companies that meet their producer responsibility has more than tripled and it reached a record high in 2019: the material type ‘paper, paperboard, cardboard’, for example, had a rate of around 76%, lightweight packaging of around 74% for the contracts that existed with PROs. Furthermore, the volumes of recycled packaging have increased greatly.

Since the Packaging Act entered into force, almost 6000 administrative offences have been handed over to enforcement authorities. This is clear progress.

The online register shows the positive trends, but also shows where there are weak spots. This is the basis that we continue to build upon as we tackle the challenges that remain.

We are pleased to see that producer responsibility has become more important for companies. The goals have been reached at every level. There is also

Packaging Europe | 31 |

ON SECOND THOUGHTS...

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SMART PACKAGING WE WERE PROMISED?

Gillian Ewers, VP Marketing, PragmatIC Semiconductor, asks whether mass adoption of NFC tech is as far away as we might think.

A

few years ago, you would struggle to find a packaging sector publication that didn’t mention something about RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) and NFC (Near Field Communication), and how these technologies would revolutionize our relationship with brands. However, over the last couple of years, there seems to have been a bit of a lull. But has there?

According to IDTechEx, although there was a slight decline in the global RFID market in 2020 compared to 2019 due to the general dampening of markets during the initial stages of the pandemic, the market rebounded well in 2021 and is expected to reach US$11.6bn, rising to US$12.2Bn in 2022.

A lot of the growth in RFID tags has been in the retail sector, specifically the apparel area, driven by the move to home delivery and BOPIS (Buy Online Pick-up In Shop – or at kerb-side). Retailers who had already embraced digital were much better placed to serve this ‘omnichannel’ model, as they had up-to-date visibility of exactly what stock they had in which store meaning that they didn’t miss the opportunity to fulfil a customer order from wherever necessary. With RFID accounting for only around 26% of the apparel market there is still a long way to go until that market is saturated.

For retail stock control, it uses UHF RFID, which is a 2.4GHz technology well suited to the longer range of this application. NFC, on the other hand, uses a lower frequency, 13.5MHz, and is most well-known for its appearance in our credit cards and mobile phones which we use for tap-to-pay and tap-to-travel.

We have seen trials of NFC in packaging – mostly in applications commonly known as ‘customer engagement’, where the brands are trying to forge direct relationships with their customers by offering coupons or other experiences. For example, the prestigious Bordeaux winery Château Le Pin, which produces some of the most expensive wines in the world, used NFC tags to allow customers to authenticate the vintage and access information on the grape variety of the wine. Stora Enso integrated an NFC-enabled sensor into its boxes of luxury chocolates, giving consumers a way to check that the box had not previously been opened. And in 2017, Lucozade released promotional bottles that could be used to access free public transport via the London Tube’s NFC tap-to-pay system.

| 32 | Packaging Europe

In fact the range of opportunities open to consumers once the brand embeds NFC into a package is amazing – it can be used to authenticate, prove provenance, deliver recipe/usage instructions, or in the case of pharmaceuticals: contraindications, large font details, links to social media, feedback opportunities, guarantees, customer service, coupons, directto-brand re-order, and also data that is becoming very important – how to recycle or ensure safe disposal of the item.

Market analysts have been predicting that smart packaging will be a large market for several years – although the size varies quite a bit: US$40bn to US$62bn in 2027, that is only five years from now – so why aren’t we seeing more of it around us today? The answer to that is simple: until now, it has been too expensive.

But this may be about to change. There has been a steady reduction in the price of NFC tags, down from around 15–20 cents to about 10 cents, or a bit less. At these levels NFC-tagging is generally only affordable in high value goods or special promotional items. To make significant inroads into general packaging of everyday groceries, pharmaceuticals, personal and home care (FMCGs), the cost of producing NFC for smart packaging will have to reduce radically.

How low? The figure we’re hearing from industry sources is somewhere around the one or two cent mark for FMCGs (in very high volumes of course). Obviously, this is a drastic price reduction when compared to most solutions on the market today. New processes and technologies are ramping up that will deliver exciting reductions in the cost of the key components behind NFC tags, so that the price target will be achievable.

Also, the recent technology innovations in NFC deliver flexibility and impact resistance, opening up the possibility of integration into bags, pouches, and other forms of flexible packaging.

The right price will unlock the door to adding NFC to the items we buy every day, but in my opinion the thing that will ‘push it through the door’ to mass adoption will be brands adopting it to help reduce their EPR taxes, using it to enable them to prove that their plastic has been recovered and recycled, n not landfilled.