The document summarizes the state of the flexible packaging industry in the United States. It finds that flexible packaging continues to grow at 3% annually due to opportunities in retail factors like stand-up pouches and environmental factors including more sustainable materials. Flexible packaging reduces waste and uses less energy throughout its lifecycle compared to alternatives. The future of flexible packaging is promising as sustainability becomes more important to consumers and retailers.
1. State of the Flexible
Packaging Industry
a U.S. Perspective
Nov 2009
Bruce Foster
Mica Corporation
12/1/2009
1
2. Introduction
What is the state of U.S. flexible packaging
today?
What are the drivers for change in this
industry?
What can we expect in the future?
12/1/2009
2
6. US Plastics Industry - Facts
3rd Largest Industry in the USA
Employment – about 1.1 million workers
Turnover – About $380 billion/annum
US Factories – About 18,000 in 2008
Trade Surplus – About $11 billion in 2008
Location – Some presence in Every US State
Average Growth – 3.4% / per year
Productivity – Average 2.3%/year since 1980
12/1/2009
9
7. Flexible Packaging Segment
Flexible packaging ~ $26 billion / year
~400 flexible packaging factories in U.S.
Flexible packaging continues to grow at the
annual rate of ~3%
Growth is linked to:
1 Opportunity based on retail factors
2 Opportunity based on environmental factors
12/1/2009
10
9. Mica Customers Consumption - 2009 vs. 2008
500.0
450.0
400.0
2008
MT / Year
350.0
2009
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
L1
M1
M2
M3
M4
S1
S2
S3
Customer Size Category: Large / Medium / Small
12/1/2009
12
10. Flexible Packaging Segment
Flexible packaging ~ $26 billion / year
~400 flexible packaging factories in U.S.
Flexible packaging continues to grow at the
annual rate of ~3%
Growth is linked to:
1 Opportunity based on retail factors
2 Opportunity based on environmental factors
12/1/2009
13
11. Opportunity Based On Retail Factors:
Areas with good growth potential
Lidding
Pouches
Stand-Up Pouches
Re-tort packaging
“Smart” packaging
12/1/2009
14
17. Changes Related to Environmental
Factors
More solvent-free adhesive laminators
More 100% solvent-free printing operations
(via water-based inks or UV-cure inks)
Growing use of biodegradable polymers
(example: PLA)
12/1/2009
20
18. Sustainability – the Wal-Mart Factor
In October 2005 Wal-Mart’s CEO,
Lee Scott, publicly announced the
increasing importance of sustainability
to the company’s corporate and
competitive strategy in a speech titled
“21st Century Leadership”.
12/1/2009
21
19. The Sustainability initiative focuses on
three core areas:
Energy effectiveness
Waste reduction
Promotion of environmentally preferable
products
12/1/2009
22
20. The Sustainability initiative focuses on
three core areas:
Energy effectiveness
Waste reduction
Promotion of environmentally preferable
products
12/1/2009
23
22. Growth of “Sustainable Packaging”
to outpace overall packaging industry*
DuPont estimates ~25% growth/annum
Pike Research estimates growth from 21% to
32% of all flexible packaging in next 5 years
1/3 of consumers say they will purchase
“green”, if given choice
12/1/2009
*Packaging Digest, 13 July 2009
25
23. Perception vs. Facts
Public Perception: Paper is more
environmentally friendly than plastics
Facts:
Paper making requires 2x – 3x more energy per
ton vs. plastics production.
Plastics are only ~6% of US landfill waste
US Producers save 58 million barrels of oil/year
by choosing plastics over alternative packaging
materials.
12/1/2009
26
24. How to Change Public Perception?
Education (Example: SPI’s “PlastiVan” programs)
Responsible management
Infrastructure for collection, recycling, proper
disposal (incineration).
12/1/2009
27
25. Summary
US Flexible Packaging Industry Remains
Healthy
Consumer demands driving changes
(“fast-fresh”, more choices on portion sizes)
Wal-Mart “Sustainability” Program is driving
changes
More Consumer Education Needed
12/1/2009
28
27. Where to Get More Information
Statisitics Obtained through:
SPI (www.plasticsindustry.org)
Flexible Packaging Association
(FPA – www.flexpack.org)
U.S. Census Bureau
12/1/2009
33
42. Less Resources. Less Footprint.
More Value.
Third Edition
Flexible Packaging: Less Resources, Energy, Emissions, and Waste
Flexible Packaging
43. Flexible Packaging
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING OFFERS SIGNIFICANT VALUE
Less Resources. Less Footprint. More Value.
AND SUSTAINABILITY BENEFITS TO PRODUCT
This brochure describes several FPA case studies of flexible
MANUFACTURERS, RETAILERS, AND CONSUMERS.
and alternative packaging systems. The studies identify trends
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MANY PACKAGING OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO MEET VARIOUS PACKAGING DEMANDS,
in packaging weight, product-to-package ratio, landfill discards,
energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The data sources for the FPA case studies include:
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING OFFERS CONSIDERABLE
• The FPA Sustainability Assessment of Flexible Packaging 2009
ADVANTAGES, WITH FEWER TRADE-OFFS.
research report produced by Battelle Memorial Institute. Battelle
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING REDUCES WASTE, ENERGY
used a streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) to identify
USE, AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
trends in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
ADDITIONALLY, FLEXIBLE PACKAGING PROVIDES
MANY CONSUMER CONVENIENCES INCLUDING
EXTENDED SHELF LIFE, EASY STORAGE,
MICROWAVEABILITY, AND RESEALABILITY.
• PE Americas analysis of readily available data. This PE
Americas analysis was not critically reviewed per ISO 14040
standards and represents the magnitude of the comparative
environmental profiles.
• Other data sources as footnoted.
The FPA case studies describe representative systems which
include plausible assumptions for other packages and therefore
may be generalized to discuss the advantages of flexible
packaging over alternative packaging.
1
2
44. Beverage Packaging
Beverages have typically been packaged in aluminum cans, glass,
or plastic bottles. Stand-up flexible pouches are making inroads in
packaged juices and fruit drinks.
• The flexible beverage pouch consumes 1/2 the amount of
energy compared to the closest alternative.
• The flexible beverage pouch generates 75% less emissions
than the closest alternative.
• Stand-up flexible pouches significantly reduce greenhouse
gases released and energy consumed during the transport of
unfilled packaging from packaging converter to filling operation.
Beverage
Packaging
Product
Weight
Packaging
Weight
Product-toPackaging
Ratio
Packaging
Weight per
100 g Product
MSW Landfill
per 100 g
Product*
Energy
Consumption
MJ/8 oz
Emissions
Kg CO2 e
/8 oz
Glass Bottle
& Metal Cap
8 ounces
(236 g)
198.4 g
1:1
83.9 g
54.5 g
3.36
0.29
Plastic PET
Bottle & Cap
8 ounces
(236 g)
22.7 g
10:1
9.6 g
6.0 g
3.00
0.18
Aluminum
Can
8 ounces
(236 g)
11.3 g
21:1
4.7 g
2.4 g
0.99
0.08
Stand-up
Flexible Pouch
6.75 ounces
(199 g)
5.7 g
35:1
2.8 g
2.8 g
0.45
0.02
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed for
the FPA by Battelle Memorial Institute.
3
Product assumed to be water.
*Recycling rates factored: U.S. EPA 2007 MSW Report.
Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated by
Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
4
45. Raisin Packaging
• Stand-up flexible pouches are 37% less by weight compared
to bag-in-a-box packaging.
• Per 100 g of product, bag-in-a-box packaging produces
approximately 3 times more MSW than stand-up pouches.
• A flexible pouch consumes about 54% less energy over
its life cycle than the next most efficient package.
• Energy consumption during transportation is significantly
less for flexible packaging than alternatives.
Raisin
Packaging
Product
Weight
Packaging
Weight
Product-toPackaging
Ratio
Packaging
Weight per
100 g Product
MSW Landfill
per 100 g
Product*
Energy
Consumption
MJ/24 oz
Emissions
Kg CO2 e
/24 oz
Round Paperboard
Canister with Plastic Lid
24 ounces
(680 g)
39.69 g
17:1
5.83 g
5.83 g
2.16
0.13
Folding Carton with
Inner Poly Bag
12 ounces
(340 g)
22.68 g
15:1
6.67 g
4.87 g
1.95
0.16
Stand-up
Flexible Pouch
24 ounces
(680 g)
11.34 g
60:1
1.66 g
1.66 g
1.06
0.05
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed for
the FPA by Battelle Memorial Institute.
5
*Recycling rates factored: U.S. EPA 2007 MSW Report.
Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated by
Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
6
46. Parcel Mailer
There are two forms of mailers commonly used: recycled
paperboard and HDPE flexible pouches.
• The flexible pouch consumes approximately 1/3 the
energy of the alternative to produce, ship, and use.
• The flexible pouch generates approximately 1/2 the
CO2 emissions of the alternative.
• Recycled paperboard mailers produce 7 times more landfill
waste by weight per 100 g of product than HDPE flexible
pouch mailers (taking into consideration a 27.3% recovery
rate of paperboard).
• The flexible pouch mailer uses 1/8 the amount of packaging
per 100 g of product vs. the paperboard mailer.
Parcel
Mailer
Product
Weight
Mailer
Weight
Product-toMailer Ratio
Mailer Weight
per 100 g Product
Energy
Consumption
MJ/Mailer
Emissions
Kg CO2 e
/Mailer
Recycled Paperboard
Mailer
13.28 ounces
(376 g)
96.38 g
4:1
25.63 g
4.80
0.23
HDPE Flexible
Pouch Mailer
13.28 ounces
(376 g)
11.33 g
33:1
3.01 g
3.37
0.11
(100% recycled paperboard,
35% post consumer recycled material)
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed for
the FPA by Battelle Memorial Institute.
Product weight assumption: 100 sheets of 24 lb 8.5” x 11” copy paper.
U.S. EPA 2007 MSW Report.
Mailer weight, product weight, and product-to-mailer ratio calculated by Packaging &
Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
7
8
47. Multi-unit Packaging
Flexible collation shrink wrap packaging reduces product shift in
transit, decreasing breakage and/or product waste.
• The flexible shrink wrap consumes 35% less energy than
the alternative.
• Compared to paperboard folding containers (such as in
this study), flexible shrink wrap provides an 81% reduction
in packaging weight.
• Flexible shrink wrap packaging (in this comparison) offers
5 times more product-to-packaging ratio.
Multi-unit
Packaging
Product
Weight
Packaging
Weight
Product-toPackaging Ratio
Packaging Weight
per 100 g Product
Energy
Consumption
MJ/120 oz
Emissions
Kg CO2 e
/120 oz
Paperboard
120 ounces
(3,402 g)
66.2 g
51:1
1.9 g
2.13
0.05
Flexible Collation
Shrink Wrap
120 ounces
(3,402 g)
12.6 g
270:1
0.4 g
1.36
0.05
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed for
the FPA by PE Americas based on readily available data. The results are not critically
reviewed per ISO 14040 standards and represent the magnitude of the comparative
environmental profiles.
9
Source: The Dow Chemical Company, internal calculations based on data derived per
Environmental Defense (www.papercalculator.org); Boustead Model V5; The ULS Report,
February 2007; and a raw material cradle-to-gate, plus recycle system boundary.
Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated by
Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
10
48. Coffee Packaging
Coffee packaging includes metal cans, rigid plastic containers, and
the flexible “brick pack.”
• The flexible brick pack consumes 1/4 of the energy used
by alternate packaging.
• The flexible brick pack generates 75% less emissions
than the closest alternative.
• The energy savings equivalent of changing all steel coffee cans
to flexible brick packs is more than 17,200,000 gallons of
gasoline per year.
• The flexible brick pack contains 88% less packaging by weight
when compared to metal cans.1
• The flexible brick pack reduces the weight of waste to landfill
by 72% vs. metal cans (taking recycling rates of cans
into account).2
• Flexible brick packs use 20% less space in shipping than
cans,2 reducing transportation emissions.
Coffee
Packaging
Product
Weight
Packaging
Weight
Product-toPackaging Ratio
Packaging Weight
per 100 g Product
Energy
Consumption
MJ/11.5 oz
Emissions
Kg CO2 e
/11.5 oz
Metal Can with
Plastic Lid
11.5 ounces
(326 g)
96.38 g
3:1
29.56 g
4.21
0.33
Plastic Container
& Lid
11.5 ounces
(326 g)
59.53 g
5:1
18.26 g
5.18
0.17
Flexible
Brick Pack
11.5 ounces
(326 g)
11.33 g
29:1
3.47 g
1.14
0.04
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed for
the FPA by PE Americas based on readily available data. The results are not critically
reviewed per ISO 14040 standards and represent the magnitude of the comparative
environmental profiles.
11
1
Calculations compare 422.38 g total weight metal can with plastic lid (326 g of contents)
versus 337.33 g total weight brick pack (326 g of contents).
The ULS Report, February 2007, “Coffee Conundrum” Case Study.
2
Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated by
Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
12
49. Foodservice #10 Packaging
Flexible pouch packaging is an alternative to metal cans for
a wide range of foodservice applications. The flexible foodservice
pouch eliminates sharp edges and offers dispensing fitments and
product visibility.
• The flexible foodservice pouch consumes 75% less energy
than the metal can.
• The flexible foodservice pouch generates 1/10 the CO2
emissions of the metal can.
• The flexible pouch is less than 1/10 the packaging weight
of the metal can.
• Each case of #10 flexible pouches with finished product
utilizes 30% less volume than a case of #10 cans.
Foodservice
Packaging
Product
Weight
Packaging
Weight
Product-toPackaging Ratio
Packaging Weight
per 100 g Product
Energy
Consumption
MJ/108 oz
Emissions
Kg CO2 e
/108 oz
#10 Metal
Can
108 ounces
(3,064 g)
312.4 g
10:1
10.2 g
12.59
1.07
#10 Flexible
Pouch
108 ounces
(3,064 g)
28.4 g
108:1
0.9 g
2.87
0.11
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed for
the FPA by PE Americas based on readily available data. The results are not critically
reviewed per ISO 14040 standards and represent the magnitude of the comparative
environmental profiles.
13
Source: Sealed Air Corporation, www.sealedair.com
14
50. Rotisserie Chicken Packaging
Ready-to-eat rotisserie chickens have traditionally been packaged
in rigid dome containers. Innovative technology now allows a
flexible package to perform in a deli hot case for freshly prepared
foods while reducing environmental impacts.
• Eighty-eight percent less fossil fuel is used, and 85% fewer
CO2 emissions are generated during the manufacturing of
flexible pouches.1
• The fossil fuel equivalent of changing a year’s worth of rigid
dome rotisserie chicken packaging to flexible pouches would
save enough gas to drive around the world 1,475 times.2
• The flexible pouch uses 91% less space by case in shipping.
More than 12 truckloads of rigid containers are needed to ship
the same amount of Hot N Handy® pouches contained in one
53'-long truckload.3
• The flexible pouch offers a 2/3 reduction of solid waste by
weight introduced in landfills versus rigid dome packaging.1
• The flexible pouch offers value-added features such as a built-in
handle, a resealable zipper, and being microwaveable and hot
case ready.
Rotisserie Chicken
Packaging
Product
Weight
Packaging
Weight
Product-toPackaging Ratio
Packaging Weight
per 100 g Product
Energy
Consumption
MJ/40 oz
Emissions
Kg CO2 e
/40 oz
Rigid Dome Container
(Tray + Lid)
40 ounces
(1,134 g)
64 g
18:1
5.6 g
5.49
0.20
Hot N Handy®
Flexible Pouch
40 ounces
(1,134 g)
15 g
76:1
1.3 g
1.35
0.03
Source: Robbie Manufacturing, Inc. Cradle-to-gate energy consumption data based on European
eco-profiles (www.PlasticsEurope.org).
Product weight assumption: Average weight of cooked whole rotisserie chicken.
Data based on 2007 Life Cycle Analysis testing by Robbie Manufacturing, Inc., conducted using
SimaPro 7.1 LCA Software
1
15
Compared to rigid packaging based on annual rotisserie sales of 550 M units.
Fuel estimate: 1,809,623 gallons; total miles: 36,729,786.25 @ 20.3 MPG. Calculations
generated using U.S. Energy Information Administration and U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas
Equivalencies Calculator.
2
Based on industry average packaging/shipping dimensions of rigid packaged
rotisserie chicken.
3
16
53. Highest Achievement Award
Kraft YES Pack
Highest Achievement Award
Gold — Packaging Excellence
Silver — Environmental & Sustainability Achievement
Manufacturer: Exopack, LLC
End User/Customer: Kraft Foods
Plant: Battle Creek, MI
Designer/Design Firm: Smart Bottle, Incorporated
Key Suppliers: Foth Production Solutions, LLC; Smart Bottle, Incorporated
Key Suppliers: Information not available
Package Description: Designed to provide a flexible alternative to rigid gallon jugs, the Kraft YES
Pack is an innovative and environmentally friendly flexible gallon dressing package. To provide ease
of use by foodservice operators, Kraft YES Pack incorporates a two-handle design and a smaller
spout, making the package easier to carry and pour. The use of flexible materials versus a rigid
container affords the customer a package that was manufactured using approximately 50 percent
less energy and 60 percent less plastic material.
The Highest Achievement Award is given to a Gold Award winning package ranked by the judges
as having contributed most to the advancement of the industry.
9
54. Gold Awards
Aashirvaad Select
Gold — Printing Achievement
Manufacturer: Paharpur 3P
End User/Customer: ITC Limited
Plant: Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Designer/Design Firm: Bhawna Saini
Key Suppliers: Sakata Inx (India) Limited, P.T. Emblem Asia, Bostik India Private Limited
Key Suppliers: Information not available
Package Description: Aashirvaad Select 5Kg package is a stand-up pack with authentic looks.
The best part of the pouch is the brilliance in printing. The main desired property to achieve from
PE film was high dart impact strength. The combination of gloss and matte effect has given an
abstract look to highlight certain areas of the pack.
11
55. Flexible Packaging Innovation Showcase
Kraft Fresh Take
Manufacturer: Exopack, LLC
End User/Customer: Information not available
Plant: Menasha, WI
Designer/Design Firm: Information not available
Key Suppliers: Information not available
Competition Category: Packaging Excellence, Technical Innovation
Package Description: Fresh Take is a new packaging solution that allows two separate
ingredients to be packaged together at the retail point of purchase. The package provides
the ability to manufacture, sell, and distribute two different products that do not come
in contact before the end use customer purchase. Thus, any two products that cannot be
mixed before the end use point would benefit from this film structure. This may also allow
for greater shelf life of products that have a short product life after being mixed together.
FLEXOPP B-TNP 8 micron BOPP Film
Manufacturer: Flex America Incorporated
Plant: Uttar Pradesh, India
Designer/Design Firm: Information not available
Key Suppliers: Information not available
Competition Category: Technical Innovation
Package Description: This is the world’s first 8 micron BOPP film that is suitable for all
conversion operations like printing, laminating, coating and metallization. This replaces
currently used BOPP films ranging in thickness from 12 microns to 20 microns as the
constituent top substrate of 3 and 4 ply flexible laminate structures thus effecting a very
substantial downgauging resulting in light-weighting, lower material usage, cost savings
and a much lower carbon footprint and better sustainability.
Northern Choice Compostable
Manufacturer: Genpak
End User/Customer: Condillo Foods
Plant: Aurora, Ontario, Canada
Designer/Design Firm: SGS — Evolution
Key Suppliers: Innovia Films
Competition Category: Environmental & Sustainability Achievement
Package Description: Northern Choice compostable packaging is the result of several
years of development work focused on creating a high end retail package meeting the
ASTM D6400 standards for compostability. This was done without sacrificing graphics or
packaging machine performance. Other features over previously available packaging are
increased raw material sustainability and reduced solvent usage during printing.
A unique feature of our package is that it will also biodegrade under the proper
home composting conditions.
36
56. (as of June 2013)
•
The Flexible Packaging industry had $26.7 billion in sales in the United
States in 2012.
•
Flexible packaging is the second largest packaging segment in the
U.S., garnering about 18 percent of the U.S. $145 billion packaging
market.
•
The flexible packaging industry directly employs approximately 79
thousand people.
•
Flexible packaging converters range from small manufacturing
companies operating a single facility to large integrated corporations
with up to 38 individual plant locations.
•
The average flexible packaging company employs about 195 people
and serves a wide array of markets.
•
Exports account for nearly 6 percent of industry shipments.
•
The largest market for flexible packaging is food (retail and
institutional), accounting for about 58 percent of shipments.
•
Other markets for flexible packaging include retail non-food at 12
percent; industrial applications at 8 percent; consumer products at 10
percent; institutional non-food at 3 percent; and medical and
pharmaceutical at 9 percent.
