Flexible packaging is often positioned as a sustainability success story—where do you see the biggest disconnect between those claims and what’s actually happening on the factory floor?
The biggest disconnect is the "invisible" footprint. While flexible packaging is praised for being lightweight and reducing transport emissions, the printing and laminating processes required to make those packages "shelf-ready" are often carbon and chemical-intensive, if not controlled. On the factory floor, we see high-speed flexographic and rotogravure presses running complex, multi-colour designs. Each added colour and specialized coating introduces more solvents and potential Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions, which should be addressed. A package can be "recyclable" in theory, but if its production releases massive amounts of untreated VOCs into the local community, is it truly a sustainability success?
Much of the sustainability conversation focuses on materials—recyclable, compostable, lightweight—but how overlooked are manufacturing emissions in that equation?
They are significantly overlooked. We have become hyper-focused on the end-of-life of the package, but the beginning-of-life—the actual fabrication—is where the immediate environmental impact happens. Materials like compostable films often require specialized adhesives or coatings that can be more difficult to manage from an emissions standpoint than traditional materials. True sustainability requires a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) that weighs the energy and emissions of the factory as heavily as the recyclability of the film.
With EPR laws and tighter emissions thresholds emerging globally, how is regulatory pressure reshaping the way manufacturers approach sustainability today compared to even five years ago?
Five years ago, compliance was often seen as a "check-the-box" hurdle—something to be handled once a year. Today, with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and tighter air quality standards, it has become a core business risk. Regulators now have access to better data and satellite monitoring, meaning there’s nowhere to hide. Manufacturers are moving away from reactive "patchwork" solutions and toward integrated environmental engineering. They realize that a "shut-down" order due to emissions violations is far more expensive than the investment in proper abatement technology
You’ve spoken about compliance moving from static standards to continuous monitoring—what does that shift look like in practice, and why is it becoming unavoidable?
In the past, a facility might have a stack test once every few years. Now, we are beginning to see the rise of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) from various agencies.
In practice: This looks like digital dashboards providing real-time data on destruction efficiency and solvent loading.
Why it's unavoidable: Transparency is the new global currency. Whether it’s an agency like the EPA or an ESG-focused investor, stakeholders want to see proof of performance 24/7, not just on the day the inspector shows up.
The flexible packaging market is booming—but what are the environmental trade-offs that scale is introducing, particularly in terms of air quality and VOC emissions?
Scale brings speed. As lines run faster to meet e-commerce and food safety demands, the volume of solvent-based inks and adhesives being processed increases exponentially. Without a corresponding scale-up in capture and control systems, a "boom" in production leads to a "boom" in local ozone precursors. We are "living in a bag world," and the trade-off for that convenience is a massive increase in the industrial air footprint of the converting sector.
How critical are technologies like VOC capture systems and thermal oxidizers becoming—not just for compliance, but as a competitive advantage for manufacturers?
They are a massive advantage because of energy recovery. Modern Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers (RTOs) don’t just destroy pollutants; they capture the heat generated by burning those VOCs and recirculate it back into the plant’s ovens or dryers.
Total Efficiency=Destruction Efficiency(99%+)+Thermal Energy Recovery
Manufacturers using these systems have lower utility bills and a lower carbon footprint per unit produced, allowing them to win contracts from big-brand owners who are scrubbing their supply chains for carbon "leakage."
Plastics continue to dominate flexible packaging due to cost and performance—do you see a realistic path to reducing reliance on them without compromising operational efficiency?
It’s a steep climb. Plastic is an engineering marvel for barrier protection and cost. However, the path forward isn't just "replacing" plastic; it’s waste-to-energy and circularity. We are seeing innovation in pyrolysis—turning plastic waste back into energy or chemical feedstocks. If we can’t eliminate the plastic, we must eliminate the waste by creating a closed loop where the manufacturing by-product powers the next production cycle.
Which is the bigger threat for manufacturers right now—falling behind on regulatory compliance, or being exposed for sustainability claims that don’t match operational reality?
Right now, the bigger threat is the reputational gap. Regulatory fines are quantifiable; a "Greenwashing" scandal can destroy a brand’s market value overnight. When a company claims a "Carbon Neutral" package while their factory is under-reporting VOC emissions or wasting massive amounts of energy, that hypocrisy is a ticking time bomb for their PR and investor relations.
From your work on the ground, what separates manufacturers who are proactively addressing these challenges from those who are still lagging behind?
It comes down to leadership mindset. Proactive manufacturers treat environmental engineering as a Strategic Investment. They hire process engineers who understand that clean air and efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Laggards treat it as a Necessary Evil—they wait for a violation notice before they upgrade, and by then, they are usually facing higher costs, longer lead times, and lost production.
Looking ahead, what do you think will define “true sustainability” in flexible packaging—and what will companies need to do now to stay ahead of that curve?
"True Sustainability" will be defined by Net-Zero Production, not just the material. It’s the "Total Footprint" of the package:
Material: Bio-based or high-recycled content.
Process: Zero VOC leakage at the source.
Energy: 100% heat recovery or renewable-powered manufacturing.
Companies that want to stay ahead must stop looking at the package in a vacuum and start looking at the entire factory ecosystem. If you can prove your production process is as clean as the product you’re selling, you’ve already won.
Please visit https://shipandshore.com/ to find out more