Flexible packaging
Flexible packaging and the Design for Reality challenge By Parkside
O
ne of the great benefi ts of fl exible packaging is that it makes things simple. It’s effi cient to produce in strong, durable, highly functional structures. It’s simple to store and transport, supporting more cost- eff ective logistics operations. It’s easy for consumers to grab and open. With increasingly eff ective single-polymer laminated fi lms entering the market, even the material structure of fl exible packaging is becoming simpler. And this all means that fl exible packaging is becoming much simpler to recycle. In theory, at least. The reality of fl exible packaging recycling, however, is still anything but simple. A critical gap exists between the ambition of packaging innovators and the infrastructure available to support it.
THE EPR ERA
This gap may not seem particularly wide, and it may be shrinking all the time, but it still matters. The UK’s Extended Producer Responsibility reforms are a perfect demonstration of why this is the case. It uses modulated fees, set to be introduced imminently, which will be adjusted using the Recyclability Assessment Methodology. This system classifi es packaging as red, amber, or green.
In simple terms, green-rated packaging should be charged lower fees, while red-rated packaging faces higher costs. The logic is sound; reward formats that can be recycled eff ectively and penalise those that cannot. But the reality is that recycling is a two- way street. It needs the right material structure, but that material also needs to be suitable for collection, sorting and processing at scale. If the infrastructure
isn’t in place to achieve this, then the material will be given a red rating. For fl exible packaging, this means they can be made with materials that use monopolymer fi lms, recyclable laminates, or paper-based alternatives and still face fi nancial penalties if the system is not ready to process them.
DESIGNING FOR REALITY
This is far from a lost cause. Collection of plastic fi lm packaging and plastic bags alongside household plastic recycling will be introduced gradually in England beginning 31 March 2027, further strengthening the case for well-designed fl exible packaging. Until then, however, the absence of widespread kerbside collection means many fl exible plastic formats remain exposed to a red outcome at the collection stage, regardless of the progress being made in material innovation.
Ultimately, designing for recycling is not the same as designing for reality and this is the challenge facing all the industries that rely on fl exible packaging. For converters and brands, this creates a diffi cult balancing act. On one hand, there is a clear need to
invest in future-ready packaging. The industry cannot wait until every collection route is in place before developing better materials. Progress depends on innovation in recyclable fi lms, fi bre-based formats, compostable structures where appropriate and lightweight designs that reduce material use and transport impacts.
On the other hand, those innovations must be grounded in the systems that exist today. A theoretically recyclable pack that cannot be collected or sorted in practice may not be truly recyclable in reality. It may also fail to reduce EPR exposure in the short term.
DESIGNING FOR TODAY, PREPARING FOR TOMORROW
Solving this problem means regulators, administrators, waste management operators, converters, brands, packaging suppliers and consumers all need to shift their mindsets. And EPR, for all the challenges it presents, could be the catalyst for this widespread shift. It’s something that can unlock many new possibilities for packaging but only if those possibilities are embraced.
Brands need to ask ‘is this material recyclable?’ and ‘where, how and at what scale is it recycled?’. Converters need to design with a vision of performance, shelf life, packing line effi ciency, consumer behaviour, labelling, collection routes and end-of-life infrastructure in mind. Policymakers and waste management providers, meanwhile, need to ensure that fee modulation supports the behaviours it is intended to encourage. At Parkside Flexibles, we have found success through a pragmatic approach that is both forward- looking and rooted in the material reality of today. In practice, this means employing techniques like lightweighting materials or incorporating recycled content to reduce EPR exposure and employing water- based barrier coatings to support the development of high-performance recyclable paper laminates that are compatible with today’s infrastructure. At the same time, it also means developing recyclable monopolymer laminates that will one day be recyclable at scale.
In this sense, fl exible packaging innovation can be seen as one of the keystones of tomorrow’s circular economy. It cannot hold the system up on its own, but without it, the whole structure collapses. It isn’t a simple answer but it could be the fi rst step to a simpler, more circular recycling system for fl exible packaging.
24
May/June 2026
www.convertermag.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
