The push towards thinner materials is one of the most notable advancements. As Grant explains: ‘The industry is downgauging on materials, especially on the backing paper of labels, which equates to thousands of tons of material saved per year.’ This trend towards reducing material thickness is not just about cutting costs, it’s a crucial step in minimising the environmental footprint of label production. Thinner substrates mean less waste and more efficient use of resources, aligning with broader sustainability goals.
Yet, the conversation doesn’t stop at material thickness. Adhesives play a critical role in the recyclability of labels, especially in the context of PET packaging. Grant highlights the importance of Avery Dennison’s CleanFlake technology and UPM Raflatac’s PP Wash Off, which both offer washable adhesives designed to support PET recycling.
‘We’re the first South African converter to use Avery Dennison’s CleanFlake and we’re probably the largest user of this material option in the country,’ says Grant. ‘These technologies are game changers, allowing PET to be recycled into food-grade materials, thereby closing the loop on packaging waste. However, these innovations also come at a slightly premium price tag.’
The journey towards fully sustainable label substrates is fraught with obstacles. One of the most pressing issues is the lack of differentiation in the recycling stream. Grant points out that ‘there’s no logo or on-package certification that distinguishes washable adhesives from non-washable adhesives.’ This lack of clear identification complicates the recycling process as collectors and recyclers are unable to easily differentiate between labels with washable and non-washable adhesives. The result is a system that, despite its best efforts, is still vulnerable to contamination and inefficiency. Wicus says there’s a big onus on brand owners and converters to ‘do the right thing’ by opting for sustainable solutions whenever possible. ‘Consumers need to trust brand owners, while brand owners must rely on converters to use the appropriate materials.’
He underscores the complexity of this issue, noting that ‘increased cost walks in at the front of the house and trust walks out at the other end.’ In a highly competitive market, where cost-cutting is often a priority, the temptation to use cheaper, non-approved adhesives is strong. Without stringent regulation from producer responsibility organisations (PROs), the integrity of the recycling stream is at risk, leading to potential setbacks in achieving sustainability goals.
The conversation also touches on the challenges of incorporating post-consumer recycled (PCR) content into labels. ‘We’ve initiated one of the first projects with Woolworths on this,’ comments Grant. ‘However, the adoption of PCR content is slow, largely due to high costs and limited availability. The demand for PCR labels is still in its infancy and without significant volume, the economic feasibility remains uncertain.’
Improving infrastructure
Rotolabel’s experience highlights the broader issue facing the label substrate industry: the gap between innovation and infrastructure. While technologies such as CleanFlake and PP Wash Off represent significant strides forward, the lack of a robust recycling infrastructure means that these innovations are not always fully realised. As Wicus aptly puts it: ‘Without proper infrastructure, the benefits are limited.’
While the label substrate industry is making commendable progress in sustainability, the path forward requires more than just technological innovation. It demands a concerted effort (in partnership with government) to build the infrastructure necessary to support these advancements, along with a commitment to integrity and trust within the supply chain. Only then can the true potential of these innovations be unlocked, paving the way for a more sustainable future in packaging.
