Monomaterial packaging: why it is needed and how to transition
More expensive or cheaper: let's examine the cost
Straight answer: at the development and launch stage, monomaterial is almost always more expensive than multilayer packaging — new molds, test runs, line modifications are needed. But in operation, the picture changes, and this is rarely explained to companies at the start of the project.
| Parameter | Multilayer packaging | Monomaterial packaging |
|---|---|---|
| R&D and line adaptation costs | Low (technology is well-tested) | High at the start, one-time |
| Cost of material per unit | Lower at purchase | Higher by 10–20% on initial batches |
| ROP eco-collection coefficient | Maximum | Reduced |
| Logistics (weight, volume per pallet) | Standard | Lighter, more cost-effective in terms of load |
| Suitability for recycling | Practically zero | High, provided infrastructure is available |
The key hidden effect is eco-collection. In the ROP system, the coefficient is calculated based on the complexity of material extraction, the number of recycling cycles, and the technological possibility of disposal. At the same time, monomaterial packaging, which is fully suitable for recycling, may potentially achieve a lower coefficient, however, actual coefficient values are set separately for each product group. With large shipment volumes, weight savings are also noticeable: even 5–7% reduction in film weight at million-unit runs changes pallet and container logistics. A systemic transition to monomaterials and the development of recycling infrastructure can lead to substantial savings in ROP payments, although exact figures by region vary depending on the level of sorting capacity development.
Case of transition: what practice teaches us about implementation
Let's return to the technologist with the coffee bag. The problem he encountered is typical for flexible packaging — namely, it accounts for up to 70% of all multi-component packaging for food products, and this segment is under the greatest risk of regulatory restrictions. The barrier against moisture, oxygen and light in the multilayer structure was provided by separate layers — foil and PET. In the monovariant of the same protection, it is necessary to achieve structural solutions: co-extrusion of several layers of the same polymer with different density, metallization within allowable 10% non-monomaterial additives, special barrier coatings based on PE or PP.
Testing took several cycles: first, checking the migration of smell and taste of the product, then heat resistance during hot filling, then print durability under temperature fluctuations in warehouse logistics. Each cycle takes at least 2-3 weeks, including ordering test batches from the film supplier. In total, from the first redesign to industrial launch, more than a year passed — and this coincides with the general practice: manufacturers of "Danaflex" and "Gotek", who already offer mono-packaging for coffee, tea and sauces, allocate exactly multi-year development cycles for such projects, not months.
Who has already transitioned and why they chose PE and PP
The transition to monomaterials is uneven across categories, and this is explained not by fashion, but by the physics of the product and the maturity of the recycling infrastructure.
- Coffee, tea, spices — dry products with moderate barrier requirements, easily transition to Full-PE or Full-PP structures with metallization.
- Sauces and liquid products — require more complex barrier protection, but are already successfully closed with mono-PET films with an EVOH layer of less than 10% by mass.
- Beverages and water — here the PET monosheet structure dominates, because the collection and recycling infrastructure for PET packaging in Russia and the world is the most developed.
- Dairy products and freezing — the transition is slower due to requirements for strength at low temperatures.
Polyethylene leads by volume — 461 thousand tons of monomaterial packaging in 2024 year, largely because PE already has a developed recycling infrastructure, unlike mixed materials. Food and beverage products account for a small share of total monomaterial packaging volume, reflecting an early stage of adoption of these solutions in the food industry. This means that monomaterial packaging in food is not a mass standard, but a zone of active growth.
Why monomaterial is not a guarantee of recycling
Here it is worth dispelling the main misconception: monomateriality of films does not mean that they will automatically end up at recycling. Flexible packages are exactly that segment where the material is technically suitable for recycling, but the collection and sorting system is not yet ready for it. The problem is not in the polymer chemistry, but in the infrastructure: containers for separate collection in most regions are designed for rigid packaging — bottles, jars — not flat films, which clog sorting lines and require a separate flow.
Therefore, a realistic forecast is as follows: the share of monomaterial flexible packaging that actually reaches recycling in the coming years will depend strongly on the region. In cities with developed scrap collection points and specialized film recyclers, the percentage is higher; where infrastructure is being built from scratch, even an ideal Full-PE package may end up on a landfill along with regular waste. The recycling rate norm of 75% by 2026 year and 100% by 2027 year pushes manufacturers to make packaging suitable for recycling, but does not solve the sorting capacity issue — this is a separate task for regions and waste management operators.
Transition algorithm: where to start a company
Transition should not begin with a complete redesign of the product line — this is an expensive and risky path. It is more reasonable to proceed according to a pilot principle.
- Audit of the current packaging: to determine which SKUs use multi-layer structures and what their actual barrier requirements are (moisture, light, oxygen, shelf life).
- Selection of a pilot product — usually a position with moderate barrier requirements and stable demand is chosen, so that the risk from testing is minimal.
- Selection of a supplier of film working with Full-PE/Full-PP structures, and request for test samples tailored to specific product parameters.
- Laboratory tests: taste and odor migration, barrier properties testing, heat resistance during packaging and storage.
- Printing testing and design adaptation — often requires changing ink type and adjusting printing equipment settings.
- Pilot run on a real production line with control over packaging speed and defect rate.
- ROI calculation considering reduced eco-collection coefficient, savings on weight in logistics, and material cost.
- Scaling up to the rest of the product line after confirming process stability.
Realistic cycle duration — from half a year for a simple product without strict barrier requirements to 2-3 years for complex categories with high preservation requirements. Companies that build such timelines into their strategy in advance can prepare for RoHS regulations without rushing and without initial batch defects.
| Parameter | Multilayer packaging | Monomaterial packaging |
|---|---|---|
| R&D and line adaptation costs | Low (technology is well-tested) | High at the start, one-time |
| Cost of material per unit | Lower at purchase | Higher by 10–20% on initial batches |
| ROP eco-collection coefficient | Maximum | Reduced |
| Logistics (weight, volume per pallet) | Standard | Lighter, more cost-effective in terms of load |
| Suitability for recycling | Practically zero | High, provided infrastructure is available |
The key hidden effect is eco-collection. In the ROP system, the coefficient is calculated based on the complexity of material extraction, the number of recycling cycles, and the technological possibility of disposal. At the same time, monomaterial packaging, which is fully suitable for recycling, may potentially achieve a lower coefficient, however, actual coefficient values are set separately for each product group. With large shipment volumes, weight savings are also noticeable: even 5–7% reduction in film weight at million-unit runs changes pallet and container logistics. A systemic transition to monomaterials and the development of recycling infrastructure can lead to substantial savings in ROP payments, although exact figures by region vary depending on the level of sorting capacity development.
Case of transition: what practice teaches us about implementation
Let's return to the technologist with the coffee bag. The problem he encountered is typical for flexible packaging — namely, it accounts for up to 70% of all multi-component packaging for food products, and this segment is under the greatest risk of regulatory restrictions. The barrier against moisture, oxygen and light in the multilayer structure was provided by separate layers — foil and PET. In the monovariant of the same protection, it is necessary to achieve structural solutions: co-extrusion of several layers of the same polymer with different density, metallization within allowable 10% non-monomaterial additives, special barrier coatings based on PE or PP.
Testing took several cycles: first, checking the migration of smell and taste of the product, then heat resistance during hot filling, then print durability under temperature fluctuations in warehouse logistics. Each cycle takes at least 2-3 weeks, including ordering test batches from the film supplier. In total, from the first redesign to industrial launch, more than a year passed — and this coincides with the general practice: manufacturers of "Danaflex" and "Gotek", who already offer mono-packaging for coffee, tea and sauces, allocate exactly multi-year development cycles for such projects, not months.
Who has already transitioned and why they chose PE and PP
The transition to monomaterials is uneven across categories, and this is explained not by fashion, but by the physics of the product and the maturity of the recycling infrastructure.
- Coffee, tea, spices — dry products with moderate barrier requirements, easily transition to Full-PE or Full-PP structures with metallization.
- Sauces and liquid products — require more complex barrier protection, but are already successfully closed with mono-PET films with an EVOH layer of less than 10% by mass.
- Beverages and water — here the PET monosheet structure dominates, because the collection and recycling infrastructure for PET packaging in Russia and the world is the most developed.
- Dairy products and freezing — the transition is slower due to requirements for strength at low temperatures.
Polyethylene leads by volume — 461 thousand tons of monomaterial packaging in 2024 year, largely because PE already has a developed recycling infrastructure, unlike mixed materials. Food and beverage products account for a small share of total monomaterial packaging volume, reflecting an early stage of adoption of these solutions in the food industry. This means that monomaterial packaging in food is not a mass standard, but a zone of active growth.
Why monomaterial is not a guarantee of recycling
Here it is worth dispelling the main misconception: monomateriality of films does not mean that they will automatically end up at recycling. Flexible packages are exactly that segment where the material is technically suitable for recycling, but the collection and sorting system is not yet ready for it. The problem is not in the polymer chemistry, but in the infrastructure: containers for separate collection in most regions are designed for rigid packaging — bottles, jars — not flat films, which clog sorting lines and require a separate flow.
Therefore, a realistic forecast is as follows: the share of monomaterial flexible packaging that actually reaches recycling in the coming years will depend strongly on the region. In cities with developed scrap collection points and specialized film recyclers, the percentage is higher; where infrastructure is being built from scratch, even an ideal Full-PE package may end up on a landfill along with regular waste. The recycling rate norm of 75% by 2026 year and 100% by 2027 year pushes manufacturers to make packaging suitable for recycling, but does not solve the sorting capacity issue — this is a separate task for regions and waste management operators.
Transition algorithm: where to start a company
Transition should not begin with a complete redesign of the product line — this is an expensive and risky path. It is more reasonable to proceed according to a pilot principle.
- Audit of the current packaging: to determine which SKUs use multi-layer structures and what their actual barrier requirements are (moisture, light, oxygen, shelf life).
- Selection of a pilot product — usually a position with moderate barrier requirements and stable demand is chosen, so that the risk from testing is minimal.
- Selection of a supplier of film working with Full-PE/Full-PP structures, and request for test samples tailored to specific product parameters.
- Laboratory tests: taste and odor migration, barrier properties testing, heat resistance during packaging and storage.
- Printing testing and design adaptation — often requires changing ink type and adjusting printing equipment settings.
- Pilot run on a real production line with control over packaging speed and defect rate.
- ROI calculation considering reduced eco-collection coefficient, savings on weight in logistics, and material cost.
- Scaling up to the rest of the product line after confirming process stability.
Realistic cycle duration — from half a year for a simple product without strict barrier requirements to 2-3 years for complex categories with high preservation requirements. Companies that build such timelines into their strategy in advance can prepare for RoHS regulations without rushing and without initial batch defects.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
