A label does much more than carry graphics.

It carries ingredients.

Regulatory information.

Barcodes.

Languages.

Batch information.

Brand identity.

And increasingly, serialization and product-specific data.

But it also creates another packaging component that has to be purchased, printed, stored, applied and eventually dealt with when the package enters a recycling system.

Direct-to-object printing proposes a deceptively simple alternative:

remove the label and print directly onto the container.

Engineered Printing Solutions (EPS) is bringing that argument to PRINTING United Expo 2026, where it plans to demonstrate pad printing, single-pass inkjet, multi-pass digital printing and robotic direct-to-object systems.

The exhibition will run September 23–25 at the Las Vegas Convention Center, with EPS exhibiting at booth C2137.

At first glance, this looks like a printing-equipment story.

It is more interesting as a packaging-design story.

Because DTO printing does not simply change how graphics reach the container.

It can change when packaging becomes a specific SKU, how much decorated inventory a brand has to hold, how quickly artwork can change and which materials remain attached to the package at end of life.

Those potential advantages are real.

But there is an important qualification.

Removing a label does not automatically make a package easier to recycle.

In some polymer streams, the opposite can be true.

That makes direct-to-object printing a useful example of why packaging simplification and packaging recyclability cannot always be treated as the same thing.

DTO changes where the decoration sits

Conventional decoration often adds another physical component to a package.

A pressure-sensitive label brings label stock and adhesive.

A shrink sleeve brings a second polymer film.

A paper label introduces fibre and adhesive onto a plastic container.

Other formats may require separate printed components and dedicated application equipment.

DTO printing moves the graphic function onto the package itself.

EPS executive chairman Kenneth Stack argues that this can eliminate not only the label or sleeve, but also associated inventory and application equipment.

That is directionally reasonable.

But the strongest economic advantage may not actually be the missing few grams of label material.

It may be postponement.

Instead of purchasing thousands of already decorated packages for individual SKUs, a manufacturer can potentially hold undecorated containers and assign artwork later.

That changes inventory economics.

A plain bottle does not yet belong to strawberry, vanilla or mango.

It does not necessarily belong to the French-language, German-language or Spanish-language version.

And it does not have to become obsolete because a regulatory sentence changes before the product reaches market.

Digital DTO can theoretically push that differentiation closer to the filling or final manufacturing stage.

For brands with many SKUs, short promotional cycles or frequent artwork changes, that can be important.

The real competition may be against obsolete inventory

Packaging waste does not originate only after the consumer opens the product.

It can occur before the package ever reaches a store.

Artwork changes.

A promotion ends.

A formulation changes.

A warning statement changes.

A customer cancels an order.

A decorated bottle fails another quality inspection.

When packaging has already been printed or labelled for a particular product, some of that inventory can become difficult to redirect.

Stack’s argument is that manufacturers can instead decorate qualified containers closer to demand.

That deserves attention because digital manufacturing economics increasingly depend on reducing the amount of finished inventory that exists before there is an actual order for it.

The same principle is already familiar elsewhere in packaging and commercial printing:

print later, differentiate later and carry fewer finished SKUs.

DTO takes that logic from labels onto the container itself.

Digital printing also makes variable graphics technically easier because the image can change between objects without changing a physical plate.

EPS says its single-pass platforms can handle serialization, lot codes and one-off graphics at production speed. Its current systems include cylindrical platforms for bottles, tubes and closures and robotic equipment for complex three-dimensional objects.

That gives DTO an advantage that cannot be measured simply by comparing ink cost with label cost.

The more SKUs a business has, the more valuable changeover avoidance can become.

But “label-free” and “recycling-friendly” are not synonyms

This is where the sustainability argument becomes considerably more complicated.

Stack suggests that a mono-material container without a label or sleeve can present an easier recycling story.

Sometimes that can be true.

A label can interfere with near-infrared sorting.

Its adhesive can contaminate recycling processes.

Its polymer may have a different density from the package.

Its ink may migrate into recyclate.

And full-body sleeves can prevent sorting equipment from correctly identifying the underlying bottle.

But a removable label also performs another function.

It can carry the ink away from the principal packaging material during recycling.

Direct printing places that ink permanently on the container unless the recycling process can remove it.

That means the recyclability outcome depends heavily on the polymer and recycling stream.

There is no universal rule that says:

no label = better recycling.

Clear PET exposes the contradiction

PET bottles provide the clearest example.

European PET recycling guidance does not currently treat extensive direct printing as an improvement over removable decoration.

The European PET Bottle Platform lists laser etching as acceptable and traceability coding as a limited direct-print application, while other direct printing is placed among design features that interfere with bottle-to-bottle recycling.

RecyClass guidance is similarly cautious.

Its PET recommendations state that direct printing can introduce inks and other substances into the PET recycling stream and favor decoration placed on labels or sleeves that can be separated during recycling.

Japan’s Council for PET Bottle Recycling is even more explicit: its voluntary design guidelines state that PET bottle bodies should not be directly printed, apart from limited codes such as best-before dates, production information and lot identification.

That is particularly relevant because clear PET bottles are one of the applications EPS identifies as suitable for DTO decoration.

This does not mean direct printing cannot physically be applied to PET.

Clearly it can.

It means that printability and recyclability are two different engineering questions.

A decoration system may work extremely well on the packaging line while being undesirable for a high-quality PET recycling stream.

For brands pursuing bottle-to-bottle circularity, that distinction is critical.

PP and HDPE tell a different story

The conclusion changes again when the package is polypropylene or HDPE.

RecyClass published new technical findings in 2026 after testing direct printing on rigid packaging.

For coloured PP and HDPE containers, inks and lacquers used for direct printing were considered fully compatible with the relevant recycling streams when the decoration remained at or below 1% of total packaging weight.

Above 1%, RecyClass classified the feature as having limited compatibility.

That provides much stronger support for direct decoration in certain applications.

But even here, the details matter.

Natural and white packaging streams can be particularly sensitive to contamination from inks because recyclers want to preserve high-value light-coloured recyclate.

Print coverage can also affect how packaging is classified and sorted. RecyClass’s own assessment tool takes overall decoration coverage into account when determining whether packaging behaves as natural or coloured material.

The correct sustainability question therefore becomes:

Direct print on what material, with which ink, at what coverage, entering which recycling stream?

Without those four pieces of information, a generic recyclability claim is not very useful.

Decoration is becoming part of design for recycling

This has wider implications for packaging development.

Historically, recyclability discussions often focused on the main substrate.

PET bottle.

PP tub.

HDPE container.

Paperboard carton.

But recycling systems do not receive theoretical substrates.

They receive complete packages.

Ink arrives with the container.

So does adhesive.

So does the closure.

So does a coating.

So does a sleeve.

Decoration therefore has to be treated as part of the material architecture rather than as something added after packaging development has been completed.

Recent RecyClass work illustrates this increasingly detailed approach.

Its technical committees now test issues including printing inks, direct printing, barrier layers, labels, closures and adhesives separately because each can influence recyclate quality.

This is where DTO could become either a strong design-for-recycling tool or a complication.

If it replaces a problematic multi-material sleeve on an appropriate PP container using a recycling-compatible ink system, the package could become simpler.

If it permanently decorates a clear PET bottle whose recycling process relies on separating decoration from the PET flakes, it can move in the opposite direction.

Material elimination is not useful if the material being eliminated was also serving as the removable carrier for contamination.

That is the more sophisticated recycling discussion DTO needs.

Paper and molded fiber create another opportunity

EPS is not focusing solely on plastics.

Stack identifies corrugated board, molded fiber and other porous paper-based substrates as potential applications for water-based direct printing.

That development deserves particular attention from the paper-packaging industry.

Fiber packaging is expanding into more three-dimensional formats as brands investigate molded pulp, fiber trays, paper tubs and other plastic-replacement concepts.

Those shapes do not always fit comfortably into conventional sheet-fed printing and converting workflows.

Direct-to-object technologies could potentially decorate the already formed package.

That could create an interesting production sequence:

form the molded-fiber product,

inspect it,

then digitally print only the accepted parts.

For short runs or high SKU counts, that can reduce the need to manage multiple preprinted packaging inventories.

EPS says it has been developing high-viscosity water-based ink systems intended to sit closer to the surface of porous materials rather than disappearing deeply into the fiber structure.

That is technically relevant because untreated paper absorbs fluid.

When ink penetrates too aggressively, optical density can fall and more ink may be required to achieve the desired image.

But here again, printing performance and recyclability should be evaluated separately.

A water-based ink is not automatically harmless to a paper mill simply because water is used as its carrier.

Pigments, binders and other ink components remain on the fiber.

For heavily decorated fiber packaging, repulpability and process-water behavior still deserve consideration.

The same principle applies throughout DTO:

the chemistry ultimately matters more than the printing method’s sustainability label.

The printer may actually be the easiest component

Stack makes another observation that is particularly credible from a manufacturing perspective:

the printer itself is often not the difficult part.

For plastics such as PP and PE, reliable adhesion can require flame, corona or plasma treatment because their surface energy may initially be too low for the ink to wet and bond properly.

EPS explicitly integrates these pretreatment technologies into its production systems, and the company has described pretreatment as central to achieving consistent DTO adhesion.

That changes what buyers are actually purchasing.

They are not installing only a printhead.

A production cell may need:

part loading,

orientation,

surface cleaning,

plasma, flame or corona treatment,

precise fixturing,

printing,

UV or thermal curing,

camera inspection,

reject handling,

and unloading.

EPS itself now markets integrated systems around this sequence and says pretreatment is required in most production-grade applications it encounters.

That supports Stack’s argument that DTO should be approached as a manufacturing process rather than as a printer purchase.

For packaging companies, this is an important distinction.

A digital print engine may change artwork instantly.

A physical container still has dimensional tolerances.

It still has to enter the machine at the correct angle.

A bottle may need to rotate accurately.

A cap must remain registered.

A molded part may vary slightly from cavity to cavity.

And a decorated surface still has to survive abrasion, filling, transport and consumer use.

Digital flexibility does not eliminate mechanical variability.

Part handling may determine the real throughput

This is especially important when comparing single-pass, multi-pass and robotic printing.

Single-pass printing offers high throughput because the printheads remain fixed while objects move through the print zone.

EPS lists speeds of up to 5,000 parts per hour for its cylindrical XD-360 system, while some cap applications can operate substantially faster.

Multi-pass equipment sacrifices some throughput for flexibility and lower-volume economics.

Robotic systems solve another problem entirely.

Instead of forcing a complex object through a fixed printing geometry, the robot can present different surfaces to the print engine.

EPS’s XD-R uses a six-axis robot for complex three-dimensional components and can integrate sensing, product handling, pretreatment and curing.

This makes the phrase “direct-to-object printing” somewhat misleading if treated as one technology.

It is really a family of decoration approaches.

For a brand evaluating DTO, the correct choice depends on geometry, annual volume, SKU count, artwork complexity, substrate, required colors and automation strategy.

A million identical caps present a very different production problem from 20,000 limited-edition cosmetic bottles.

Pad printing has not suddenly become obsolete

Digital inkjet receives much of the attention because of variable data and rapid artwork changes.

That does not mean established printing methods disappear.

Pad printing remains useful for parts where a compliant silicone pad can transfer ink onto difficult geometries and where production volumes and artwork stability justify physical tooling.

EPS itself is demonstrating pad printing alongside its digital platforms at PRINTING United rather than positioning one technology as universally superior. Its current portfolio explicitly separates pad printing, multi-pass inkjet, single-pass inkjet, cylindrical printing and integrated production systems according to application requirements.

That is an important signal.

The future of container decoration is unlikely to be “digital replaces analog.”

It is more likely to be increasingly application-specific.

Stable, very high-volume graphics may continue to favor conventional technologies.

High-mix production and frequent version changes strengthen the economics of digital.

Complex objects may justify robotics.

The purchasing decision becomes an optimization problem rather than a technology contest.

Food and pharmaceutical packaging raise the bar again

DTO becomes more complicated when decoration moves onto packaging used for food, pharmaceuticals or medical products.

Ink selection then cannot be based only on adhesion and image quality.

Potential migration matters.

Curing matters.

Set-off matters.

Position relative to the product matters.

The final package construction and intended use determine which compliance requirements apply.

Stack says EPS uses ink systems intended to meet frameworks including EuPIA guidance, the Swiss Ordinance and Nestlé requirements in relevant applications.

Those are meaningful considerations, but compliance should always be assessed against the specific ink, package, printing location and end-use application, rather than treating a printing platform itself as compliant.

The same caution applies to claims such as PFAS-free.

Those statements belong to the chemistry being supplied and the relevant testing or formulation documentation, not to DTO printing as a category.

This is another reason packaging companies cannot select the printer first and solve ink later.

The ink-substrate-product combination is the package.

The biggest DTO opportunity may be operational, not environmental

Sustainability will inevitably be part of the discussion because label elimination is visually easy to communicate.

But the strongest business case for DTO may ultimately come from manufacturing flexibility.

Consider a brand with:

twelve flavors,

four languages,

seasonal promotions,

frequent regulatory changes,

multiple export markets,

and relatively modest volumes per individual SKU.

Traditional packaging procurement can multiply those variables into dozens of decorated inventory positions.

Direct digital decoration potentially allows the company to hold fewer generic containers and create final SKUs closer to the production date.

That can reduce:

obsolete printed stock,

minimum-order exposure,

changeover complexity,

forecasting risk,

and the time required to launch a new version.

Those benefits exist even if the recycling performance of the final package remains unchanged.

This distinction is important because it prevents sustainability from carrying an argument it cannot universally support.

DTO does not have to be greener in every application to be commercially useful.

It may be valuable because it makes packaging production more responsive.

The label industry is unlikely to disappear

This also means that talk of eliminating labels should be kept in perspective.

Labels perform functions DTO cannot always replace economically.

They can provide tactile effects.

Metallic finishes.

High opacity.

Security features.

Peel-back regulatory information.

Coupons.

Barrier functions.

And, importantly, removable decoration for recycling systems that prefer the package body to remain unprinted.

Labels can also be printed separately from the container on highly productive web-fed equipment, often at enormous speeds.

The future therefore is unlikely to be label versus no label.

A more realistic question is:

Which packaging applications still need a separate decoration component, and which no longer do?

That is a far more consequential question for converters.

If DTO expands, label demand may not disappear uniformly.

It could erode first in applications where digital versioning, high SKU complexity, short runs and direct container decoration provide an obvious operational advantage.

Other markets may remain firmly label-based.

Direct printing turns decoration into packaging engineering

EPS’s PRINTING United presentation arrives at an interesting point in the packaging market.

Brands want fewer material combinations.

They want faster SKU changes.

They want personalization.

They want lower inventory.

They want packages that can be recycled.

And they want all of that without sacrificing throughput or brand appearance.

DTO appears capable of addressing several of those requirements.

But not automatically.

Removing a label simplifies the physical bill of materials.

It does not eliminate the ink.

It does not eliminate surface chemistry.

It does not eliminate curing.

And it does not eliminate the need to understand what happens to that decoration after the container becomes waste.

That leads to a more useful rule for packaging developers:

Do not ask whether direct printing is more recyclable than a label. Ask which decoration architecture is most compatible with the specific package and recycling stream.

For coloured PP or HDPE, carefully controlled direct decoration may offer a convincing route.

For clear PET bottles designed for bottle-to-bottle recycling, removable decoration may remain the better answer.

For molded fiber and paper structures, aqueous DTO could create new design and short-run possibilities, but ink chemistry and repulpability still need attention.

And across all of them, the economics will depend on whether eliminating label inventory and shortening SKU changeovers offsets the cost of pretreatment, automation, inspection and the printing cell itself.

That is why Stack’s most useful observation may be the least glamorous one:

companies adopting DTO are not really buying a printer.

They are redesigning part of their manufacturing process.

And if direct-to-object printing becomes important in packaging, that is where its biggest effect will be felt.

Not simply in how graphics reach a bottle or tray.

But in when the package becomes a SKU, how many materials are attached to it, and how decoration is designed into the manufacturing and recycling system from the beginning.

Last Updated on 14/09/2026 by Jota Machinery