PPWR Packaging Compliance and EPR: How TOPPAN Supports Measurable Claims Without Compromising Product Reliability

Packaging sustainability is becoming a product-reliability issue

For years, packaging sustainability could be discussed primarily as a strategic ambition. Companies announced reductions in plastic, movement toward recyclable packaging, greater use of recycled content and increasingly circular packaging portfolios. Those ambitions remain important, but the environment in which they are communicated has changed. European packaging regulation is moving sustainability from the language of corporate intention toward a system increasingly built around defined methodologies, technical documentation, measurable performance and demonstrable conformity.

For senior executives responsible for product reliability, this changes the nature of the conversation. Packaging can no longer be redesigned around an environmental objective while product performance is treated as a separate engineering problem. The two are becoming inseparable. A package still has to protect the product through manufacturing, filling, distribution, storage and use, but the business also needs increasingly robust evidence about what the package is made from, how it performs, how its recyclability is assessed and what environmental claims can legitimately be made.

That is particularly important because the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, or PPWR, explicitly recognises the functional role of packaging. The regulation states that packaging should be designed to minimise volume and weight and enable recyclability while maintaining its ability to perform its packaging functions. In other words, regulatory pressure for circularity does not erase the need for containment, protection, handling, transport and preservation. Eur-Lex

For a product-reliability leader, this is the critical starting point. The objective is not simply to create packaging that appears more sustainable. It is to develop packaging whose sustainability characteristics and product-protection performance can both be demonstrated.

That distinction will increasingly separate mature packaging strategies from superficial ones.

PPWR changes the meaning of a packaging claim

One of the most consequential changes under the PPWR is that characteristics such as recyclability and recycled content are moving toward regulated definitions and methodologies rather than remaining primarily voluntary marketing terminology.

Article 14 addresses environmental claims concerning packaging characteristics for which the PPWR establishes legal requirements. Such claims may only concern properties that exceed the applicable minimum PPWR requirements and must follow the relevant criteria, methodologies and calculation rules. The claim must also identify whether it applies to the entire packaging unit, a component of that package or a broader portfolio of packaging placed on the market by the economic operator. Compliance with those requirements must be demonstrated in the packaging's technical documentation. Eur-Lex

That is a significant shift for brand leadership.

Consider how easily phrases such as “recyclable packaging,” “made with recycled materials,” “mono-material,” “circular packaging” or “sustainable pack” can be used in marketing. Historically, different companies could apply those descriptions using different internal definitions, external certification schemes or assumptions about what consumers understood them to mean.

Under the emerging European system, the quality of the claim increasingly depends on the quality of the underlying data.

A statement about recyclability must ultimately connect to the actual pack architecture and applicable methodology. A recycled-content claim needs a defined percentage, material basis and verification approach. A mono-material statement should accurately describe the structure rather than imply that every finished package will automatically be collected and recycled in every market.

This is why sustainability communication is becoming closely related to product engineering. The technical team, sustainability team, marketing department, legal function and packaging supplier increasingly need to work from the same evidence.

For product-reliability executives, that creates an opportunity. The same discipline already used to manage quality, shelf life, barrier performance, seal integrity and manufacturing tolerances can increasingly be applied to environmental performance and packaging claims.

The strongest claim begins with the packaging specification

The packaging industry has always depended on measurement. Barrier requirements are not defined by adjectives such as “excellent” or “premium.” Engineers work with measurable parameters such as oxygen transmission rate, water-vapor transmission rate, seal strength, thickness, heat resistance and processing conditions.

That way of thinking becomes increasingly relevant to sustainability.

If a company wants to communicate that a new package uses less plastic, the baseline and reduction need to be defined. If it claims recycled content, the percentage, material and calculation methodology matter. If it describes a package as designed for recycling, the complete structure has to be considered, including inks, adhesives, coatings, seals, labels, valves, zippers, closures and other components.

The message for executive leadership is straightforward: environmental communication cannot be stronger than the data behind the structure.

TOPPAN's technical approach provides a useful example of how that discipline can work. Its GL BARRIER portfolio is built around measurable barrier performance, with product grades designed for different applications, including general flexible packaging, retort applications and mono-material structures. TOPPAN publishes oxygen transmission rate and water-vapor transmission rate data alongside defined test conditions and explicitly notes that published figures are example measured values from its measurement environment rather than universal guaranteed values. Toppan

That qualification is important.

A reliability-focused organisation should resist the temptation to convert supplier data directly into a universal packaging claim. Laboratory measurements, film-level specifications and application guidance provide a technical foundation, but the finished package must still be evaluated under the conditions that matter for the actual product.

A high-barrier film used in a dry-food pouch has different operating requirements from a retort pouch exposed to heat, pressure and moisture. A film that performs successfully before conversion may behave differently after printing, lamination, flexing, forming, sealing and filling. Shelf-life performance is ultimately the result of a packaging system, not a headline specification.

This is precisely why regulatory readiness and product reliability belong in the same discussion.

PPWR is moving recyclability from intention to performance classification

One of the most important PPWR developments for packaging teams is the introduction of formal recyclability performance grades.

The regulation establishes grades A, B and C. Under the framework set out in Annex II, Grade A corresponds to an assessment of at least 95% by weight under the design-for-recycling methodology, Grade B at least 80%, and Grade C at least 70%. Packaging below the Grade C threshold is considered technically non-recyclable under the framework. From 2030, recyclability will be assessed using design-for-recycling criteria, subject to the specific timing provisions tied to the delegated legislation. From 2035, recycled-at-scale performance becomes an additional factor, and from 2038 packaging generally needs to achieve Grade A or B to remain on the market, subject to the regulation's exemptions and timing provisions. Eur-Lex

This matters because the word “recyclable” can no longer be understood purely as a statement about theoretical material compatibility.

Design for recycling is only part of the journey. The PPWR framework increasingly connects recyclability with real collection, sorting and recycling conditions. The delegated criteria are required to consider established collection and sorting processes, available recycling technologies, the quality of secondary raw materials, the effects of packaging components and, where relevant, substances that can impair recycling. Eur-Lex

For flexible packaging, this is especially consequential.

Flexible structures have historically achieved high performance by combining materials that perform different technical functions. PET may contribute stiffness and printability. PE or PP may provide sealing. Polyamide may contribute mechanical durability. EVOH, aluminum foil, metallized layers or coated films may deliver barrier performance. Adhesives, coatings and printing systems add additional functionality.

These structures can be extremely effective at protecting products, yet the combination of different material families can complicate recycling.

The challenge for packaging development is therefore not simply to remove materials. It is to preserve the functions that those materials delivered while moving the overall structure toward a design that can perform better under recyclability assessment.

That is a more difficult engineering problem than changing a sustainability label. It is also a more valuable one.

EPR turns packaging design into an economic variable

Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, reinforces the connection between packaging design and commercial performance.

The PPWR builds on existing EU waste legislation by placing responsibilities for packaging waste management on producers under the polluter-pays principle. Producers must register in the relevant Member States where they first make packaging or packaged products available, and EPR financial contributions cover defined waste-management-related costs. The framework also provides for the future modulation of producer contributions according to recyclability performance grades. Eur-Lex

This is important for executive teams because packaging design can increasingly influence more than material cost.

Historically, procurement might compare two structures primarily by film price, conversion cost, operational efficiency and product performance. Under a more developed EPR environment, packaging that performs poorly against recyclability criteria may also carry different financial consequences over time.

The PPWR specifically requires the Commission's recyclability framework to address modulation of the financial contributions paid by producers for EPR based on packaging recyclability performance grades. The regulation provides that the modulation mechanism will apply after the relevant delegated and implementing acts enter into force. Eur-Lex

That does not mean companies can already calculate a universal future EPR saving from switching one flexible package to another. The detailed methodologies and Member State implementation remain important, and executive teams should be cautious about simplistic cost projections.

It does mean that recyclability is becoming increasingly relevant to the total cost of packaging.

A structure that is inexpensive to purchase but difficult to recycle may look different when future producer-responsibility costs, regulatory restrictions, redesign expenses and documentation demands are included in the business case.

For product-reliability leaders, that broadens the meaning of reliability itself. Reliable packaging is not only packaging that survives distribution. Increasingly, it is packaging that the business can continue using, documenting and economically supporting as regulatory expectations evolve.

Product protection cannot become the hidden casualty of compliance

There is a risk in any large regulatory transition that organisations optimise for the visible metric while unintentionally damaging the system behind it.

In packaging, that could mean focusing so heavily on material simplification or recyclability that the product itself becomes less protected.

The environmental consequences of packaging failure can be substantial. Spoilage, oxidation, moisture ingress, aroma loss, seal failure, damaged goods, returned products and reduced shelf life create material and economic waste beyond the packaging itself.

The PPWR acknowledges this relationship by retaining packaging functionality as part of the regulatory framework. The regulation's recital on packaging minimisation specifically states that packaging should minimise volume and weight and enable recyclability while maintaining its ability to perform the required packaging functions. Eur-Lex

This is why high-barrier packaging remains relevant in a circular-packaging environment.

A snack sensitive to moisture may lose texture when the moisture barrier is inadequate. Coffee can suffer oxidation and aroma degradation. Some pharmaceutical, healthcare and industrial products require carefully controlled protection from moisture or oxygen. Retorted foods place additional demands on heat resistance, seal integrity and post-processing barrier performance.

The correct sustainability strategy therefore begins with the product.

What is the required shelf life? Which degradation mechanisms must the package control? How much oxygen exposure can the product tolerate? What moisture conditions need to be maintained? Does the package undergo hot filling, boiling or retort sterilisation? What loads will it encounter during distribution? How sensitive is the product to flex cracking, seal contamination or puncture?

Once those requirements are defined, the packaging team can evaluate how the structure might be simplified without losing the functions that matter.

That is a fundamentally different approach from selecting a “sustainable material” first and trying to make the product fit it afterward.

Where high-barrier mono-material structures enter the conversation

Mono-material flexible packaging has become strategically important because it offers one potential route toward reducing material-family complexity while preserving required packaging functions.

TOPPAN describes its mono-material barrier portfolio as including both polypropylene- and polyethylene-based grades within the GL BARRIER family. Its PP-based packaging solutions use PP-based films and components, while PE-based solutions use PE-based materials, with different grades designed for different application requirements. Toppan

The distinction is important because “mono-material” does not mean the package has to be one physical sheet with no other functional elements. A mono-material-oriented structure may still use multiple films, coatings, inks or adhesives. The objective is to keep the predominant material family compatible with the intended recycling pathway while providing the functions needed by the application.

TOPPAN has also developed retortable PP mono-material barrier packaging using its GL BARRIER vapor-deposition and coating technologies. The company states that this development was designed to deliver the heat and water resistance needed for retort sterilisation while maintaining a PP-based mono-material structure. Toppan

That is significant from a reliability standpoint because retort packaging represents one of the more demanding flexible-packaging applications.

A retort pouch must remain functional after exposure to elevated temperatures, moisture and processing pressure. Barrier properties, sealing performance, laminate integrity and package durability have to survive the process while continuing to protect the product during storage.

Moving such applications toward mono-material structures therefore requires real material science and validation. It cannot be achieved simply by replacing a conventional laminate with a film carrying a recyclability message.

“Mono-material” and “recyclable” should not be treated as synonyms

This is one of the most important distinctions for executive communication.

Mono-material design can improve compatibility with a recycling stream, but it does not automatically make every finished package recyclable in every market.

Collection infrastructure differs between countries and municipalities. Sorting systems vary. Recycling facilities have different technical capabilities. Components such as valves, labels, closures, adhesives, coatings and inks can influence whether the full package meets a specific design-for-recycling methodology.

The PPWR itself moves beyond purely theoretical recyclability. Its framework ultimately combines design-for-recycling performance with whether packaging is recycled at scale. Eur-Lex

This is why a reliability-led organisation should treat recyclability as a pack-level conclusion rather than a film-level assumption.

TOPPAN has obtained external recyclability assessments for specific GL BARRIER mono-material packaging configurations. In 2022, the company reported that a PP mono-material laminated tube using GL-BP received a “Very Good” assessment from Interseroh+, while a PP mono-material flexible pouch was assessed by cyclos-HTP at 95% recyclability. Those results are meaningful evidence for those tested structures, but they should not be interpreted as proving that every package incorporating the same film automatically receives the same recyclability result. holdings.toppan.com

That distinction is exactly what a strong sustainability claim should communicate.

The more specific the evidence, the stronger the claim.

Recycled content adds another layer of measurement

PPWR compliance is not limited to recyclability. Article 7 introduces minimum post-consumer recycled-content requirements for plastic packaging, subject to defined exceptions and implementation timing.

The regulation sets a 2030 minimum of 30% for contact-sensitive plastic packaging primarily made from PET, excluding single-use beverage bottles; 10% for contact-sensitive plastic packaging made from plastics other than PET; 30% for single-use plastic beverage bottles; and 35% for other plastic packaging. The regulation then establishes higher 2040 targets, again subject to its detailed scope, exceptions and implementation provisions. Eur-Lex

For executive teams, these percentages should not be treated merely as purchasing targets.

The recycled-content requirement interacts with product safety, food-contact requirements, polymer availability, processing behaviour, appearance, mechanical properties, barrier performance and supply-chain traceability.

A product-reliability function should therefore ask not only whether recycled content is available, but whether its use can be documented and whether the resulting packaging continues to meet the application's performance requirements.

TOPPAN's broader flexible-packaging portfolio includes solutions incorporating post-consumer recycled content, and its GL BARRIER portfolio includes a mechanically recycled PET grade. TOPPAN states that the base material of this grade contains mechanically recycled PET derived from plastic bottles while using its vapor-deposition and coating technologies to provide barrier functionality. TOPPAN Packaging

Again, the useful lesson is not that one material solves every regulatory problem. It is that material selection needs to connect performance, regulatory scope and evidence.

Technical documentation is becoming strategic infrastructure

For many executives, the most important part of the PPWR may ultimately be one of its least visually dramatic elements: documentation.

Under Annex VII, manufacturers must establish technical documentation sufficient to assess packaging conformity with applicable PPWR requirements. The documentation can include a general description of the packaging and intended use, materials and component information, applicable technical standards and specifications, descriptions of relevant assessments and test reports. Manufacturers are also required to establish an EU declaration of conformity for each packaging type and retain the relevant documentation for prescribed periods. Eur-Lex

That is a major organisational change.

Packaging data can no longer remain scattered across supplier PDFs, old email chains, quality-management systems, artwork files, laboratory reports and individual employee knowledge.

A mature organisation will increasingly need a structured evidence chain.

The material specification should connect to the package structure. The package structure should connect to barrier and mechanical requirements. Testing should connect to the actual product and processing conditions. Recyclability assessments should correspond to the final pack configuration. Recycled-content declarations should connect to appropriate supplier documentation and calculation rules.

Marketing claims should then originate from that same evidence base.

This creates a much stronger governance model because the organisation can trace a claim backward from the consumer-facing statement to the technical data that supports it.

It also aligns with the PPWR's allocation of responsibilities.

The supplier is increasingly part of the compliance data chain

Packaging suppliers are becoming more important to compliance, but it is essential to describe their role accurately.

Article 16 of the PPWR requires suppliers of packaging or packaging materials to provide manufacturers with the information and documentation necessary for the manufacturer to demonstrate packaging conformity, including applicable technical documentation. However, the manufacturer remains responsible for placing compliant packaging on the market and for its EU declaration of conformity. European Commission guidance published in 2026 explicitly states that the manufacturer is the economic operator bearing legal responsibility for the packaging's compliance with PPWR sustainability and labelling requirements, even where suppliers or other organisations contribute the supporting information. Eur-Lex

This distinction matters when describing TOPPAN's role.

It would be too broad to say that TOPPAN can simply “ensure a customer's PPWR compliance.” Compliance depends on the finished packaging, the economic operator's legal role, the application, the target market and the regulatory requirements that apply.

A more accurate and commercially stronger message is that TOPPAN can provide technical material information, barrier expertise, application support and packaging-development evidence that help customers build measurable claims and support their own PPWR conformity work.

That language is more defensible because it reflects how packaging development actually works.

The manufacturer cannot outsource legal responsibility, but it can choose suppliers capable of contributing useful, traceable and technically meaningful information.

That increasingly makes documentation quality part of supplier quality.

Environmental claims are entering a stricter communications environment

PPWR does not operate in isolation.

Directive (EU) 2024/825, commonly associated with empowering consumers for the green transition, requires Member States to strengthen protections against certain misleading environmental practices. The Directive was required to be transposed by 27 March 2026, with Member States applying the measures from 27 September 2026. Eur-Lex

For packaging executives, the direction is important even beyond the specific legal mechanisms involved.

Broad language such as “green,” “eco-friendly,” “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable” increasingly creates risk when it communicates an environmental advantage that cannot be adequately supported or is broader than the evidence.

The business response should not be to stop communicating sustainability progress. It should be to communicate it with greater precision.

“Contains 30% post-consumer recycled plastic” is inherently more specific than “eco packaging.” “Designed for a defined PP recycling stream” is more useful than an undefined “recyclable” claim when the final recyclability assessment is still market-dependent. “The structure uses less plastic than the previous package” is stronger when the reduction percentage, baseline and package configuration can be demonstrated.

Precision is not weaker marketing.

For sophisticated B2B customers, retailers, regulators and sustainability teams, precision creates credibility.

EPR makes evidence financially relevant

The relationship between technical evidence and EPR deserves particular attention from senior leadership.

EPR has historically been viewed by many companies primarily as a waste-management or reporting obligation. The PPWR makes packaging design more closely connected with producer responsibility by linking future contribution modulation to recyclability performance grades. Eur-Lex

This creates an important strategic question.

If two packaging structures deliver the same product protection and manufacturing efficiency, but one achieves a materially better recyclability performance assessment, the difference may eventually influence more than sustainability reporting. It can affect regulatory resilience and potentially producer-responsibility costs.

That possibility changes how investment cases should be built.

A packaging conversion should not be evaluated only through the immediate film price. Leadership should consider conversion costs, line efficiency, waste rates, shelf-life performance, logistics, consumer experience, regulatory exposure, documentation demands and evolving EPR economics.

In some applications, the conventional structure may remain technically justified. In others, a mono-material or redesigned barrier structure may provide a stronger long-term route.

The correct answer cannot be determined by ideology.

It has to be determined by evidence.

Product reliability should become the control point

The packaging industry sometimes speaks about sustainability and reliability as though they were competing objectives.

That framing is increasingly outdated.

Reliability can become the mechanism that makes the sustainability transition credible.

When packaging teams define oxygen and moisture requirements before selecting a barrier structure, they reduce the risk of shelf-life failure. When they validate seal performance through the actual filling process, they reduce leakage risk. When they test retort structures after thermal processing rather than relying solely on pre-processing data, they gain a more realistic understanding of package performance.

The same discipline should govern recyclability and sustainability claims.

Define the claim. Define what evidence would support it. Establish the package configuration to which it applies. Confirm the relevant regulatory methodology. Record supplier data. Conduct the required testing. Preserve the documentation. Reassess when the structure changes.

This is not bureaucracy for its own sake.

It is quality management applied to sustainability.

For organisations already accustomed to qualification protocols, specifications, change-control procedures and product-release processes, that mindset is familiar. What changes is the scope of the information being controlled.

Environmental performance becomes another quality characteristic of the package.

TOPPAN's value is strongest when material science meets application knowledge

TOPPAN's GL BARRIER platform sits at an interesting point in this transition because it addresses one of flexible packaging's most difficult technical challenges: maintaining strong barrier functionality while developing structures that can support mono-material packaging directions.

TOPPAN describes GL BARRIER as a transparent barrier-film platform using vapor-deposition and coating technologies. Its portfolio includes PP- and PE-based options intended for mono-material packaging development, alongside grades for different barrier and processing requirements. The company also operates GL BARRIER production across multiple international sites and has established its Czech facility as its first European GL high-barrier film production site. Toppan

For European customers, the Czech operation is strategically relevant because regulatory transition increasingly requires direct technical communication between material suppliers, converters, packaging engineers, sustainability teams and brand owners.

The conversation is no longer simply: “Which film should we buy?”

It becomes: What product needs protection? Which degradation mechanism controls the shelf-life requirement? What OTR and WVTR range is needed in the complete laminate? What happens during filling or retort? What target recycling stream is being considered? Which additional components are part of the final pack? What claim does the brand eventually want to communicate? What evidence will be required to support that claim?

When those questions are addressed together, packaging development becomes much more robust.

That is where a technical supplier becomes strategically useful.

Reliability data must survive the move from film to finished package

Packaging development often fails when a property measured at one stage is assumed to remain unchanged throughout the rest of the system.

Barrier film may be printed, laminated, slit, transported, formed, filled and sealed before it becomes the package consumers actually encounter. It may then be exposed to folding, flexing, heat, humidity, sterilisation, freezing, transport vibration or shelf storage.

Each stage can influence performance.

For product-reliability executives, that means supplier data should define the starting point for qualification rather than the end of it.

TOPPAN's own technical presentation reinforces this principle by stating measurement conditions alongside barrier data and noting that published values are examples rather than guaranteed values. Toppan

That level of qualification should become standard practice throughout packaging claims.

If a recyclability assessment applies to one defined structure, document that structure. If a recycled-content percentage applies to one component, say so. If an environmental benefit depends on the availability of a particular waste-management system, communicate the condition.

The objective is not to make claims complicated.

It is to make them difficult to challenge.

A practical PPWR timeline for executive planning

The regulatory transition should be viewed as a sequence rather than a single deadline.

For product-reliability leadership, the important conclusion is that waiting until 2030 to understand packaging structures is strategically weak.

Development cycles take time. Qualification takes time. Shelf-life studies take time. Packaging-line trials take time. Supply contracts take time. Artwork changes, retailer approval and market conversion take time.

The organisations best positioned for the later PPWR milestones will be those using the current period to create better packaging data.

Compliance should not become a marketing project

There is a final organisational lesson in all of this.

PPWR readiness should not sit entirely inside sustainability, marketing or regulatory affairs.

Packaging touches too many critical systems.

Product development understands product sensitivity. Packaging engineering understands structure and process. Quality understands validation and change control. Procurement understands supply continuity and cost. Sustainability understands environmental objectives. Legal and regulatory teams understand claims and market obligations. Marketing understands how the final message will be interpreted.

If these functions work sequentially, problems appear late.

Marketing may develop a sustainability claim before the technical team confirms its basis. Procurement may change a material without recognising that the recyclability assessment depended on the previous specification. Sustainability may target a mono-material conversion without understanding the product's barrier requirement. Engineering may qualify an excellent structure without capturing the documentation needed to support the eventual environmental claim.

A better organisation develops the pack and the claim together.

That means the intended sustainability message becomes part of the development brief.

If the eventual claim is expected to concern recycled content, define the documentation needed. If the objective is recyclability, determine the intended stream and assessment methodology. If the business wants to state a plastic reduction, establish the existing structure as the baseline before redesign begins.

Then product reliability controls the boundary conditions.

The package must still work.

The future of packaging claims is evidence

PPWR is changing the packaging conversation because it connects environmental objectives with technical definitions, conformity procedures, producer responsibility and increasingly structured recyclability assessment.

For executive teams, the biggest mistake would be to view this purely as a regulatory burden.

There is a competitive advantage in being able to explain a package clearly.

A brand that knows exactly what its packaging contains, how it performs, what its recyclability pathway is, what evidence supports its claims and how the structure is likely to interact with future EPR economics has better information for investment decisions.

It is also better prepared when customers, retailers, regulators or sustainability teams ask difficult questions.

TOPPAN can contribute to that process through barrier-film technology, mono-material packaging development, product data, application knowledge and technical support. But the strongest position is not that a material supplier “guarantees compliance.” Under the PPWR, manufacturers retain specific conformity responsibilities, while suppliers provide information and documentation that can help support that work. Eur-Lex

That distinction actually makes the partnership more valuable.

• A sophisticated packaging supplier does not replace a customer's engineering, legal or compliance functions. It gives those teams
• stronger technical evidence with which to make decisions. 
• For product-reliability executives, that is where regulation, sustainability and engineering finally meet. 
• The package must protect the product.
• The data must describe the package accurately.
• The sustainability claim must match the evidence.

And the business needs confidence that the structure it is investing in today can remain technically and commercially credible as European packaging requirements continue to develop.

Turn PPWR requirements into a more reliable packaging strategy

Moving toward PPWR-ready packaging should not begin with a sustainability slogan or a material substitution alone. It should begin with the product, the packaging process, required shelf life, barrier requirements, target recycling pathway, sustainability objective and the commercial constraints that determine whether the solution can operate successfully at scale.

Talk to TOPPAN Packaging Czech about the product, process, required shelf life, barrier performance, sustainability objective and commercial constraints behind your package. TOPPAN can support technical discussions around GL BARRIER film options, mono-material structures, product data, barrier requirements, application testing and the material information needed to support evidence-led packaging development.

Because the most valuable packaging partner is not simply the company capable of supplying the material you use today. It is the company capable of helping you determine what your packaging needs to become tomorrow.

For technical discussions, application support, product data, datasheets or film samples, contact TOPPAN Packaging Czech s.r.o. at toppancz@toppan.com or visit films.toppan.com.

Protect the product. Improve the structure. Prepare the package for what comes next.