Flexible-packaging sustainability is increasingly becoming a lamination problem.

A brand may decide that it wants a mono-material pouch.

A converter may identify a polyethylene structure that appears compatible with a PE recycling stream.

A paper-based alternative may reduce the amount of conventional plastic in another application.

But neither structure is finished at the substrate-selection stage.

It still needs an adhesive.

It may need barrier performance.

It has to be printed.

It has to laminate consistently.

It has to survive converting, filling, distribution and shelf life.

And after all of that, the complete package—not simply its largest material component—has to work with the recycling system for which it was designed.

That tension was visible at Nordmeccanica’s North American Innovation Hub in Hauppauge, New York, on September 2, where the laminating-equipment manufacturer brought together Henkel, Windmöller & Hölscher and more than 50 attendees for technical discussions and live flexible-packaging demonstrations.

The event used a Super Simplex SL Mod. 1500 solventless laminator to run two different development directions: a paper/metallized-PET structure and a mono-PE laminate.

Nordmeccanica had described the event in advance as focusing on solvent-free lamination for paper and metallized polyester as well as MDOPE + LDPE mono-PE solventless lamination, alongside coating-weight management and production technologies.

The two demonstrations may appear to represent competing packaging strategies.

One moves toward paper.

The other stays with plastic but simplifies the polymer family.

In reality, they highlight the same industry challenge:

How do converters change the material structure without losing the functions that flexible packaging was originally designed to provide?

Flexible Packaging Is Not a $213 Billion U.S. Market

Before looking at the technology, one market figure from the event reporting needs correction.

The Flexible Packaging Association’s 2025 State of the U.S. Flexible Packaging Industry Report does not value the U.S. flexible-packaging market at $213.4 billion.

That figure refers to the total U.S. packaging market.

FPA puts U.S. flexible-packaging sales at $42.6 billion in 2024, up from $41.4 billion in 2023.

Flexible packaging accounts for roughly 20% of the U.S. packaging market, making it the second-largest packaging segment behind corrugated. FPA members projected 2025 flexible-packaging sales of approximately $44.6 billion.

The distinction matters because a $213 billion flexible-packaging industry would overstate the market by roughly five times.

FPA also reports that food remains the largest end-use segment, generating around $19 billion in annual revenue and representing approximately 45% of flexible-packaging sales.

That heavy exposure to food helps explain why material redesign is technically difficult.

Flexible packaging is often used precisely where product protection matters most.

The Existing Multilayer Pack Was Built for a Reason

It is easy to criticize conventional flexible packaging for combining multiple materials.

PET.

PE.

PA.

Aluminium foil.

Metallized film.

Barrier coatings.

Tie layers.

Adhesives.

Each additional material can complicate sorting and recycling.

But those layers did not appear accidentally.

They were introduced because different materials perform different jobs.

One layer may provide stiffness for printing.

Another provides heat sealing.

Another controls oxygen.

Another blocks moisture.

Another improves puncture resistance.

Another protects aroma.

A metal layer may provide very high light and gas barrier.

The sustainability challenge is therefore not simply to remove materials.

It is to determine which functions are genuinely necessary and how they can be delivered with a structure that is easier to recover after use.

That is a much harder engineering exercise.

Mono-PE Is One Route — but “Mono” Does Not Mean Simple

The mono-PE demonstration in New York used MDOPE and LDPE.

This type of construction reflects one of the major directions in flexible-packaging development: keeping the primary structure within the polyethylene family rather than combining PE with materials such as PET or polyamide.

Machine-direction-oriented polyethylene can contribute stiffness, optical properties and mechanical performance, while another PE layer can provide sealing and other functions.

The logic is attractive.

If enough of the structure remains within a compatible PE family, the package may be better suited to a PE-film recycling stream than a conventional mixed-polymer laminate.

But mono-PE is not automatically recyclable simply because both major films contain polyethylene.

The adhesive still matters.

Inks matter.

Barrier layers matter.

Metallisation matters.

Closures and labels can matter.

Current RecyClass guidance for European PE flexible packaging, for example, evaluates the complete structure and places specific conditions on laminating adhesives, coatings, barriers, inks and non-PE components. RecyClass also maintains a dedicated testing protocol for determining whether a laminating adhesive is compatible with the post-consumer PE-film recycling process.

RecyClass is a European design-for-recycling framework rather than a U.S. legal standard.

But the technical lesson travels well:

the largest polymer does not determine recyclability by itself.

The Adhesive Has Become Part of the Circularity Discussion

That makes Henkel’s involvement in the Nordmeccanica event more relevant than a normal equipment partnership.

In traditional lamination discussions, adhesive selection has often focused on familiar production requirements such as bond strength, cure performance, resistance and processability.

Those requirements remain.

Now another question is moving into the specification:

What happens to the adhesive during recycling?

This can become important even though the adhesive represents a relatively small percentage of the package weight.

A lamination adhesive must hold the structure together reliably during manufacturing, filling and use.

But during mechanical recycling, that same chemistry enters a process involving shredding, washing, extrusion and reprocessing.

If it interferes with the recycling stream or deteriorates recyclate quality, the package’s mono-material positioning becomes more complicated.

RecyClass updated its PE-film guidance in 2026 with more detailed criteria for laminating adhesives and provides separate laboratory testing specifically for them.

That is a good indication of where flexible-packaging development is heading.

The adhesive is no longer an invisible component between two films.

It is becoming part of the design-for-recycling calculation.

Solventless Lamination Solves a Different Problem

The Super Simplex SL used during the demonstration is designed for two-layer lamination with solventless adhesives.

Nordmeccanica lists the Super Simplex SL with web widths up to 1,500 mm and a mechanical speed of up to 450 m/min.

Solventless lamination has an important production distinction from solvent-based adhesive systems because the adhesive does not require an organic solvent carrier that must subsequently be evaporated in a drying oven.

That can reduce some energy and solvent-management requirements associated with conventional solvent-based lamination.

But solventless should not be confused with recyclable.

These are different attributes.

A solventless adhesive can be used in a packaging structure that is difficult to recycle.

Likewise, a package designed for a recycling stream still requires the adhesive chemistry and coating weight to be compatible with that stream.

This is a recurring problem in packaging sustainability language.

Terms such as:

solventless;

mono-material;

paper-based;

recycled content;

and recyclable

describe different characteristics.

They should not be used interchangeably.

Paper/MetPET Raises a Different Question

The second demonstration combined paper with metallized PET.

Nordmeccanica describes the concept as intended to support recyclable paper-packaging streams.

That is a development direction worth watching, particularly as brands explore paper-dominant flexible structures.

Paper can provide stiffness, printability and a familiar consumer recycling signal.

A thin metallized film can provide barrier performance that plain paper cannot deliver on its own.

But again, the material description does not settle the end-of-life question.

A paper/MetPET laminate is still a composite structure.

Its practical recyclability will depend on factors including the proportion of fibre, how the layers behave during repulping, adhesive chemistry, metallized-film content and the acceptance criteria of the recycling system where the package is collected.

The live demonstration proves that the materials can be laminated on the machine.

It does not, by itself, prove that every resulting package would be recyclable in every paper stream.

That claim needs product-level testing.

Paper Is Not an Escape From EPR

This distinction becomes particularly important in California.

The source article suggests paper may become a solution as the state tightens requirements around plastics.

Paper certainly may gain opportunities in some applications.

But California’s SB 54 should not be understood as a simple plastic-ban law that allows brands to move outside regulation by switching to fibre.

SB 54 establishes an extended producer responsibility programme covering single-use packaging, with CalRecycle’s covered material categories spanning glass, metal, plastics, paper and fibre, wood and other materials.

The law does include major plastic-specific objectives.

By 2032, California requires a 25% reduction in single-use plastic covered material and a 65% recycling rate for plastic covered material, while covered packaging is required to meet recyclability or compostability requirements.

So switching from plastic to paper can change the regulatory and fee equation.

It does not make packaging responsibility disappear.

For converters, that reinforces the need to evaluate the actual package rather than chase one material category.

California’s SB 343 Is About Claims, Not Packaging Bans

The other California law mentioned in the event discussion, SB 343, also needs precise treatment.

SB 343 is primarily a recyclability-labeling law.

It restricts the use of the chasing-arrows symbol and other recyclability representations unless the product or packaging satisfies California’s criteria.

CalRecycle states that the labeling restrictions are scheduled to apply to products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026.

However, there is an important current development.

On July 14, 2026, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of SB 343 while litigation continues. CalRecycle notes that the injunction blocks enforcement but does not stop the agency from continuing its required material-characterization work.

That means September 2026 is a particularly complicated moment for packaging companies operating in California.

The technical work toward better recycling claims continues.

The compliance landscape remains active.

But the enforcement position is currently affected by litigation.

For an industry article, describing SB 343 simply as a “plastic ban” would therefore be inaccurate.

EPR Changes the Economics of the Laminate

The more important point from the Nordmeccanica event may be the FPA observation that EPR will cause companies to re-evaluate packaging structures.

Historically, converters and brands could compare two laminate designs primarily through familiar variables:

material cost;

machine speed;

waste;

barrier performance;

seal performance;

and finished-pack cost.

EPR adds another economic layer.

If producer fees vary according to packaging material, recyclability or other design attributes, the cheapest laminate leaving the converter may no longer be the lowest-cost package across its complete lifecycle.

That changes how projects should be evaluated.

Suppose Structure A costs slightly more per thousand packages but receives a more favorable EPR treatment.

Structure B costs less at the converting stage but carries higher downstream fees.

The procurement comparison has changed.

The industry therefore needs to move from:

cost per package produced

toward:

total cost per compliant package placed on the market.

That is one reason recyclability is becoming a commercial engineering issue rather than an ESG side project.

The Recycling System Still Has to Exist

Henkel’s comments at the event also raised another issue that should not be lost in the material debate: recovery.

A package can be well designed for recycling and still be landfilled if:

consumers do not have access to collection;

the material is not accepted locally;

sorting systems cannot identify it;

recyclers do not have sufficient capacity;

or there is no reliable market for the recovered material.

That is particularly relevant to flexible plastics.

Their low weight is a major resource-efficiency advantage during production and transport.

The same low mass can make collection and recycling economics difficult.

This creates one of the industry’s hardest contradictions.

Flexible packaging can use substantially less material than some rigid alternatives while still facing a difficult end-of-life pathway.

A heavier substitute may be easier to recycle but consume more raw material and transport capacity.

There is no useful environmental analysis that ignores either side.

Paper Has the Same Infrastructure Question

The same caution applies to paper-based alternatives.

Paper enjoys a mature collection and recycling infrastructure in many markets.

That gives it an important advantage.

But the recycling stream was built primarily around conventional fibre products.

As flexible paper packaging adopts more barriers, sealants, coatings, metallisation and laminated films, the package can move further away from ordinary paper.

The challenge for developers is therefore to gain enough functional performance without adding so much non-fibre material that the recycling advantage deteriorates.

This is why the paper/MetPET demonstration is interesting.

It represents exactly the trade-off the sector is trying to solve.

How much non-paper functionality can be added while preserving a viable paper-recovery route?

The answer will differ by structure.

That needs evidence, not assumptions.

Mono-Material Packaging Can Still Fail on the Filling Line

Recycling compatibility is only one half of the equation.

W&H’s presence at the event brings the production side into focus.

A new laminate has to print.

It has to maintain register.

It has to move through web-handling equipment.

It has to convert into a pouch or other format.

Then it has to run on the customer’s filling and sealing equipment.

Mono-material development can change several physical properties simultaneously.

Stiffness can change.

Heat response can change.

Coefficient of friction can change.

Seal initiation temperature can change.

The sealing window may narrow.

Web behaviour can change at higher speeds.

A package that performs perfectly in a recycling assessment but forces a filling line to reduce output significantly may struggle commercially.

That is why W&H’s Paul Cucco made an important point at the event: sustainability is not simply about new materials; it requires a production process capable of using them.

That is where collaboration between film supplier, adhesive supplier, printer, laminator, converter and filling-equipment owner becomes necessary.

One Supplier Cannot Optimize the Entire Package

The event’s three-company format illustrates another structural change in flexible-packaging development.

Nordmeccanica controls lamination.

Henkel contributes adhesive chemistry.

W&H operates further upstream and through printing and film-production technologies.

But none controls the whole packaging lifecycle.

The material supplier may optimize film properties.

The adhesive producer may optimize bonding and recycling compatibility.

The equipment manufacturer may optimize coating accuracy and web handling.

The converter may optimize printing and pouch making.

The brand owner knows product shelf-life requirements.

The filler knows what happens at production speed.

The recycler knows what happens after disposal.

If these teams work sequentially, problems may emerge very late.

A brand could spend months developing a recyclable structure only to discover during industrial trials that the sealing window is too narrow.

Or a structure could run beautifully through converting but fail a recycling compatibility test because one minor component interferes with the recycling stream.

Bringing those functions together earlier can reduce that risk.

Digital Control Is Becoming Part of Material Efficiency

Nordmeccanica also highlighted its SL N-GEN CWM coating-weight management technology and Nordcloud digital functions during the event.

The sustainability relevance here is more operational than promotional.

Adhesive coat weight matters.

Too little can compromise bond performance.

Too much adds material cost and may affect cure, converting and recycling compatibility.

If the target is, for example, a narrow application range, maintaining that weight accurately through speed changes becomes important.

This is where digital production control can contribute to material efficiency.

The objective is not simply to generate more production data.

It is to reduce the gap between:

specified material use

and

actual material use.

For a converter processing millions of square metres annually, small coating deviations can accumulate into meaningful adhesive consumption.

This is another reminder that sustainable packaging is partly a process-control problem.

Flexible Packaging Remains a Large and Growing Industrial Segment

None of these challenges suggests flexible packaging is disappearing.

FPA’s latest published industry figures show the opposite.

The U.S. flexible-packaging industry generated $42.6 billion in sales in 2024, growing 2.9% from 2023. The value-added segment—including activities such as printing, laminating, coating, extrusion and pouch manufacturing—was estimated at $34.1 billion.

Flexible packaging also remains the second-largest segment of the overall U.S. packaging market.

The question is therefore not whether the market continues to matter.

It is which structures will remain economically attractive as EPR, recycling requirements and customer specifications change their total cost.

This is precisely why laminating technology deserves more attention.

For many flexible packages, lamination is where separate material functions become one commercial structure.

It is also where recyclability can either be preserved or complicated.

“Recyclable” Has to Become a Specification

The industry has spent years using recyclability as a communications term.

The next stage requires treating it more like a technical specification.

That means asking:

Which collection stream is the package designed for?

What percentage of the structure is the target polymer or fibre?

How does the adhesive behave?

What barriers are present?

What do the inks contribute?

Can the package be sorted?

What happens during washing, pulping or extrusion?

What quality of recycled material results?

And is there an actual end market?

Those questions are more difficult than printing a recycling icon.

But they are increasingly necessary.

The California SB 343 debate shows why claims are receiving more scrutiny.

The growth of design-for-recycling protocols shows why testing is becoming more detailed.

And EPR shows why recyclability can increasingly affect cost.

The Winning Structure May Not Be the Most Radical One

There is another lesson converters should take from the New York demonstrations.

The future may not belong to one substrate.

Paper will gain applications.

Mono-PE will gain applications.

PCR-containing structures will grow where technically and legally suitable.

Conventional high-barrier multilayers may remain necessary in demanding products until better alternatives reach sufficient performance.

The correct structure will depend on the product.

A dry snack and a retort pouch do not have the same requirements.

Neither do pet food, coffee, pharmaceuticals or household chemicals.

The market therefore should be cautious about absolute material claims.

A package that removes PET but doubles product failures is not an improvement.

A paper structure that cannot survive the distribution environment is not automatically more sustainable.

A mono-PE pack that cannot be practically collected is not circular simply because its polymer family has been simplified.

The strongest development strategy is usually more disciplined:

retain only the functions that are genuinely required, then deliver them with the simplest structure that performs reliably and fits a realistic recovery pathway.

What Should Converters Test Next?

For flexible-packaging converters, the Nordmeccanica event suggests a practical exercise.

Take three high-volume laminate structures from your current portfolio: one conventional PET/PE laminate, one high-barrier structure and one product already being targeted for sustainability redesign.

For each structure, identify the function of every layer.

Then ask whether that function can be:

removed;

combined with another layer;

delivered through a compatible coating;

shifted into the primary polymer family;

or retained because the product genuinely needs it.

After redesigning the structure, do not stop at the recycling assessment.

Run it at production speed.

Measure adhesive coat weight.

Check bond strength.

Print it.

Convert it.

Seal it.

Test transport.

Validate shelf life.

Then return to the recycling question and assess the complete commercial package, not the laboratory film sample.

That sequence matters.

Before Calling the Next Laminate Recyclable, Test the Whole System

Nordmeccanica’s New York demonstration shows where flexible-packaging development is heading.

Not toward one universal material.

Toward better coordination between material science, adhesives, equipment, converting and end-of-life design.

For converters and brands currently preparing for EPR costs and new recycling requirements, the most important question is no longer:

“Can we make this package mono-material?”

It is:

“Can we make this package recycling-compatible without losing the performance that protects the product and keeps the production line running?”

Then add a second commercial question:

“What does that structure cost after EPR—not just before it leaves the converter?”

Those two calculations will increasingly determine which packaging concepts move from innovation centers into millions of commercial packages.

Paper/MetPET and mono-PE represent two possible routes.

Neither is automatically the answer.

The real competitive advantage will belong to converters capable of proving the complete chain:

material selection → printing → lamination → filling → product protection → recovery.

Flexible packaging does not need sustainability concepts that only work in presentations.

It needs structures that can survive both the recycling test and the production test.

Last Updated on 04/09/2026 by Jota Machinery