Flexible packaging presentation_dec2013

4,215 views
3,980 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,215
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
236
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Flexible packaging presentation_dec2013

  1. 1. State of the Flexible Packaging Industry a U.S. Perspective Nov 2009 Bruce Foster Mica Corporation 12/1/2009 1
  2. 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
  3. 3. 12/1/2009 3
  4. 4. 12/1/2009 5
  5. 5. 12/1/2009 6
  6. 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. 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
  8. 8. Packaging by Market Area: Industrial Medical Misc Retail 12/1/2009 Food 11
  9. 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. 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. 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
  12. 12. 12/1/2009 15
  13. 13. 12/1/2009 16
  14. 14. 12/1/2009 17
  15. 15. 12/1/2009 17
  16. 16. Opportunity Based on Environmental Factors…. 12/1/2009 19
  17. 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. 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. 19. The Sustainability initiative focuses on three core areas: Energy effectiveness Waste reduction Promotion of environmentally preferable products 12/1/2009 22
  20. 20. The Sustainability initiative focuses on three core areas: Energy effectiveness Waste reduction Promotion of environmentally preferable products 12/1/2009 23
  21. 21. 12/1/2009 24
  22. 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. 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. 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. 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
  26. 26. 12/1/2009 29
  27. 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
  28. 28. Flexible Packaging: Contributing to Sustainability Less Resources. Less Footprint. More Value. © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  29. 29. Introduction During the early 1900s, as more Americans moved from the farm to the city, food had to be shipped farther from its source and thus had to stay edible for longer periods of time. Food and other consumer products had to be protected throughout the chain of distribution; from the farm or manufacturing plant to the warehouse to the store to the home. Today, less than 3% of Americans live and work on farms. However, the fact that these few Americans can feed more than 300 million Americans and millions more overseas is the result of the successful development of distribution systems and packaging necessary to avoid spoilage and waste. The average grocery store contains more than 10,000 different products, each with unique packaging requirements. Source: Flexible Packaging Association 1 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  30. 30. Reasons Why Packaging Matters! • Packaging reduces municipal solid waste by preserving products. • Packaging reduces the costs of virtually all products by reducing product damage. • Packaging helps consumers make informed purchasing decisions. • Packaging delivers nutritious food and reduces food waste. • Packaging protects against product tampering. • Packaging provides convenience for product transportation and use. • Packaging is one key to eliminating starvation, malnutrition and disease by preserving food and improving distribution. • Packaging reduces diseases by reducing spoilage. • Packaging gives us product choices we would not otherwise have. Source: Institute of Packaging Professionals 3 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  31. 31. Flexible Packages • Flexible packages have no shape of their own, and it can change shape readily, compressing easily and requiring a minimal amount of materials to manufacture. • Flexible packaging materials are used to create a barrier between the product and the environment. They are used to seal in freshness and lock out potentially damaging environmental elements, such as excess moisture, light, and oxygen that could affect the quality and taste of food, or the efficacy of medication. Source: Flexible Packaging Association 4 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  32. 32. Flexible Packaging. Less Resources. Less Waste. • Flexible Packaging typically uses less energy and less materials. • Flexible packaging creates less waste in the first place® through source reduction. • Source reduction is equivalent to minimal packaging – use of the smallest amount of materials possible to package a product. • Flexible packaging represents only about 2% of municipal solid waste. Source: Flexible Packaging Association 5 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  33. 33. Flexible Packaging Uses Less Energy to Manufacture Of total energy used in the food chain: • 50% used in food production • 10% on transport to stores • 10% to make primary, secondary and tertiary packaging drive to stores, storage, cooking, 30% packaging, 10% transport & retailing, 10% • 30% is used by shoppers to drive to the shops and store and cook food food production, 50% Source: “Packaging in Perspective” prepared by the Advisory Committee on Packaging (UK) 6 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  34. 34. Flexible Packaging Reduces Food Spoilage & Waste “Food waste has at least 10 times the environmental impact of packaging waste and that’s before taking account of the impact of methane from decayed food.” In-store waste reduced from 3% to under 1% Flexible Packaging Prolongs Shelf Life: Identical bunches stored for 7 days Shelf life extended from 3 days to 14+ days in store Source: Incpen 7 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  35. 35. Flexible Packaging Saves Transportation Miles & Fuel Consumption 60 pounds of beverage = 50 pounds of glass Sources: Dow Presentation; FPA Case Studies, 2009 = 6 pounds of Rigid PET = 3 pounds of aluminum = 1.5 pounds of Flexible plastic 8 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  36. 36. Lightweight Flexible Packaging Improves Transportation Efficiency • Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption and CO2 emission • Lessening Highway Wear/Tear and Congestion 26 Truckloads of Unfilled Glass Jars = (Pasta Sauce Flexible Pouch Example) Source: DuPont Awards for Packaging Innovation One Truckload of Unfilled Plastics Pouches = Less Fuel consumed & Less emissions 9 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  37. 37. Flexible Packaging Sends LESS to the Landfill even after Recycling Rates are Considered Beverage Packaging Example: Product Weight (g) Package Weight (g) Package Wt per 100 g Product (g) Recycle Rate Glass Bottle & Metal Cap 236 198.4 83.9 35% Plastic PET bottle & Cap 236 22.7 9.6 Aluminum Can 236 11.3 199 5.7 Flexible Stand Up Pouch To MSW Landfill MSW Landfill per 100 g Product (g) 65% 54.5 37% 63% 6.0 4.7 49% 51% 2.4 2.8 0% 100% 2.8 Sources: FPA Case Studies, 2009; EPA 2007 MSW Report 10 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  38. 38. Beverage Packaging Case Story Packaging Weight per 100g Product MSW Landfill per 100 g Product* Energy Consumption MJ/8 oz Emissions Kg CO2 e /8 oz Beverage Packaging Product Weight Packaging Weight Product-toPackaging Ratio 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 6.75 ounces (199 g) 5.7 g 35:1 2.8 g 2.8g 0.45 0.02 Stand-up Flexible Pouch Product assumed to be water; *Recycling rates factored: U.S. EPA 2007 MSW Report. Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed for FPA by Battelle Memorial Institute. Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated by Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS) 11 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  39. 39. Conclusion • Packaging is critical to modern lifestyle and food safety. • Flexible packaging generally saves more resources than it consumes. • Flexible packaging reduces waste to landfill by preserving and protecting products until they are consumed. Source: Flexible Packaging Association 12 © 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
  40. 40. Flexible Packaging Less Resources. Less Footprint. More Value.
  41. 41. Less Resources. Less Footprint. More Value. Third Edition Flexible Packaging: Less Resources, Energy, Emissions, and Waste Flexible Packaging
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. 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
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. 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
  46. 46. 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
  47. 47. 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
  48. 48. 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
  49. 49. 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
  50. 50. FLEXIBLE PACKAGING OFFERS EXCEPTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO CONVERTERS, Less Environmental Footprint . MANUFACTURERS, RETAILERS, AND CONSUMERS. OVER ITS LIFE CYCLE, FLEXIBLE PACKAGING GENERALLY USES LESS ENERGY AND FEWER RESOURCES, PRODUCES LESS CO2 EMISSIONS, SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES PRODUCT TO PACKAGE RATIO, REQUIRES FEWER TRUCKS ON THE ROAD FOR TRANSPORT, AND PROVIDES NUMEROUS SAFETY AND CONSUMER CONVENIENCE FEATURES. FLEXIBLE PACKAGING IS AN EXCELLENT SUSTAINABLE CHOICE; CREATING MORE VALUE AND LESS FOOTPRINT. www.flexpack.org Flexible Packaging Association and FPA are registered trademarks of the Flexible Packaging Association. “Less Resources. Less Footprint. More Value.” trademark of FPA pending. 17 © 2009 Flexible Packaging Association. All rights reserved. 18
  51. 51. Flexible Packaging Achievement Awards and Innovation Showcase 2013 F L E X I B L E PA C K A G I N G A S S O C I AT I O N
  52. 52. 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
  53. 53. 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
  54. 54. 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
  55. 55. (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.

×