caps and closures | Markets
PLASTIC CLOSURES DEMAND IN EUROPE BY APPLICATION (BY UNITS), 2010
Pharmaceuticals 1% Industrial chemicals 1%
Household products 4%
Solid food 4%
Liquid food 20%
Still water 14%
Sparkling water 12%
Other non alcoholic 4% Source: AMI 2012 Other alcoholic 3% Beer 2% Toiletries
& cosmetics 11%
Other 2%
CSD 16%
limited consumer spending through the economic recession. The CSD (carbonated soft drinks) and bottled water sectors are the main consumers of standard beverage caps in Europe. Bottled water has been a major factor in shaping the beverage caps industry throughout the years and it is expected to continue to contribute to future market growth.
Juices and nectars 6%
selected for their compatibility with design features and for their support of the brand proposition. For example, soft touch polymers are sometimes used in closures for personal care cream products to deliver a tactile element to the package. Certain specifi c applications within the non-bever-
age closure market, such as dispensing closures for food stuffs, are likely to see increasing standardisation. These closures are valued for their improved consumer convenience, and consequently command a premium. Dosing caps is a very varied category as the dosing feature may be a spout, a non-drip pourer, a valve a roll-on mechanism, or some other dosing device. Product delivery solutions are certainly one of the strongest drivers of innovation in the closure segment. Solid food applications will continue to offer
opportunities in terms of wide-mouth screw caps and dispensing fl ip-tops. These will be applied to an increasing variety of rigid and squeezable blow moulded containers made from PET, HDPE, OPP and multilayer structures (PP or PE plus EVOH barrier). Brand owners are increasingly convinced by the benefi ts of such packaging combinations over traditional alterna- tives, such as glass jars capped with a vacuum metal closure. Plastic packaging has the potential to act as the catalyst for a
step-change in the market positioning and user perception of a growing number of food applications.
Growth in the beverage closure sector in Europe has slowed signifi cantly in recent years. This can be attributed to saturation of beverage per capita consumption in mature markets, as well as market declines triggered by
30 INJECTION WORLD | October 2012
Other non-alcoholic beverages, including fruit drinks, iced tea and functional drinks, have shown intensifi ed growth in consumption in Europe in recent years with the average annual growth rates for these products in the higher single digit range. The health and wellness trend of these innovative beverage propositions, as well as brand owners’ intensifi ed marketing activities, have led to increased demand, which is expected to be sustained over the next few years. Penetration of standard plastic caps is lower in these drinks catego- ries, however, as they tend to use a diverse range of packaging solutions including PET bottles, cartons, glass bottles and cans.
Alcoholic beverages have also seen innovation in packaging. Aluminium capping solutions are increas- ingly being replaced with plastic, especially where the packaging itself changes from glass to PET (which has been the case for some beers). Still wine stoppers have also undergone a dramatic material change, with the increasing popularity of synthetic cork contributing positively to the category growth.
Milk and edible oil are quite mature categories in
Europe. However, the magnitude of these markets means that their low single digit growth presents the second largest incremental opportunity across all end-use applications for plastic closures. Milk and edible oil caps are to a great extent standardised; carton fi tments and wide mouth caps are popular solutions for milk, while oil caps with some sort of pouring/non-drip feature are typically very light. Segmentation of the plastic closure market by type is
PLASTIC CLOSURES DEMAND IN
Custom 53%
Standard 47%
EUROPE BY TYPE (BY UNITS), 2010
Source: AMI 2012
www.injectionworld.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116