With the Rotatek Universal 850 press running in the background, Zoltan Kelemen of Rotatek, walks visitors through the realities behind the segment. He explains why in-mould label’s (IML) appeal is not defined by scale alone, and why web-fed offset is quietly re-entering the discussion as converters look for stability, efficiency, and repeatable economics.
Kelemen explains that in-mould label ling looks niche only if you judge it purely by volume. When the lens shifts to what brand owners now expect from packaging, the relevance becomes clearer. Brand owners, he explains, are under pressure to deliver packaging that is visually strong, durable and secure, while also addressing sustainability. “In-mould labels do all of that in one step,” he notes. The label becomes part of the container, which improves recyclability and removes the need for adhesives or secondary labelling.
“That combination is why brands are increasingly interested in IML,” he adds. From a market perspective, he points out, the growth is steady and predictable. “Over the next decade, the global IML market is expected to grow at around 4.5% CAGR,” he explains, “which is a healthy number compared with the wider packaging market.” Food and beverage remain dominant, but Kelemen says personal care, cosmetics, lubricants and industrial packaging are all showing strong growth.
Asia leads growth
When asked about regional dynamics, Kelemen highlights Asia Pacific as the leader in IML adoption. “Asia Pacific clearly leads the IML market today, with just over 40% share,” he says. China and India are the fastest-growing markets, he adds, “driven by consumption growth and brand investment.”
Europe, by contrast, is more established. “The business already exists at scale in Europe,” he explains, “and growth continues, but at a slower pace.”
What matters most, he stresses, is that “there is no region where IML is declining. The dynamics differ, but the direction is consistent.”
Materials drive sustainability
Sustainability, Kelemen says, consistently shapes practical decisions around materials. “Material choice is central to IML,” he states. According to him, polypropylene dominates the segment today, “accounting for more than 80% of applications,” because it has strong resistance to physical and chemical stress, low density, and good compatibility with moulding processes.
Polyethylene, he points out, represents just over 10% of the market, “but it is gaining attention because it is lighter and seen as highly sustainable.”
He expects PE to play a bigger role going forward. Paper-based IML, he notes, exists but “is niche and largely limited to premium applications.” Overall, he says, “the broader trend is clearly towards mono-material packaging to simplify recycling.
Technology trade offs
Discussing printing technologies, Kelemen shares clear market positions. “Flexo and sheetfed offset are the dominant technologies in IML today,” he notes. Flexo accounts for more than half the global market, he says, “because it is fast, cost effective and works well with films.” Sheetfed offset holds around 30% globally, with stronger adoption in Europe due to its print quality and suitability for short to medium runs.
Web-fed offset, he adds, sits at around 8% share, “which is relatively small.” That, he explains, is largely because older web offset technologies had long setup times and limited flexibility. “Now with sleeve-based format exchanges and much shorter setup times, that will change,” he predicts.
Digital printing is growing fast in relative terms, he points out, “but its absolute share remains small because unit costs are high and productivity is lower com pared with analogue processes.”
“The market share numbers matter less than what they reveal about com mercial fit,” he says. “The question is not which technology dominates in theory, but which one holds its economics under IML’s specific demands.”
Bottlenecks shape economics
Kelemen is candid about technology limitations because, he says, IML magnifies weaknesses. “Flexo is very cost efficient at high volumes and handles variable films well,” he states, “but it struggles with fine detail and colour stability over long runs.”
Regarding sheetfed offset, he says, “It delivers excellent image quality and low plate cost, with fast changeovers.” But plastic films, he notes, introduce challenges. “Static electricity leads to mis feeds, scratching and micro-stops. To maintain registration, operators often have to reduce speed, which hurts productivity.” He also stresses that drying time with conventional inks can extend turnaround significantly.
“Web-fed offset combines offset-level print quality with web-path stability and flexible substrate handling,” he explains. It handles thin films with stable tension and registration, he says. “Setup waste is lower, colour stability is strong even on long runs, and drying is continuous.” The trade-off, he adds, is higher initial investment and less flexibility for very short runs compared with digital or sheetfed offset.
Kelemen singles out substrate handling and static control as top challenges. “IML films are extremely sensitive,” he says. “They can curl, scratch and build static very easily.” Maintaining precise tension and registration at high speeds becomes difficult, he notes. He contrasts that with a continuous web process: “There are no sheets, no grippers and no released banded corners. Tension control becomes more stable and mechanical stress on the substrate is lower.”
Ink behaviour adds another layer of complexity. “IML inks must adhere perfectly to the film, resist very high mould temperatures, maintain colour stability after moulding, and integrate with the plastic container,” he says. He explains that offset inks typically have lower ink deposition than flexo, which helps reduce curling. “In web-fed offset, heat load and drying are more consistent because the process is continuous.”
Waste and material efficiency, he underlines, are financial realities. “Film costs directly affect profitability,” he says. He notes that in flexo and web-fed offset, total waste typically sits around 2% to 3% under stable conditions. In sheetfed off set, he says total waste is usually between 3% to 6% and “can reach 8% on difficult IML jobs.” “Even small differences,” he adds, “have a significant impact when volumes are high.”
He also stresses the operational impacts of drying and workflow complexity. “In some sheetfed IML operations using conventional inks, drying alone can take several days,” he says. “During that time, printed material occupies floor space and ties up inventory.”
The multiple steps involved in sheetfed IML include sheeting, printing, stacking, palletising, die-cutting, receiving, stack unwinding and stripping, all add cost and risk, he says. “Each step adds handling, risk and cost.” Web-based workflows shorten the chain, he explains: “Printing from roll, rewinding and then die-cutting with minimal handling reduces turn a round time and reduces error points.”
“Productivity is not about peak speed,” he adds, “but about total output and total production time.” In comparative examples shown during the presentation, he says, web-fed offset “delivered roughly twice the printed output of a new sheetfed offset press for similar IML jobs, and significantly higher output than a narrow-web flexo line.” Die-cutting time, he notes, further widens the gap because web workflows avoid stripping and additional handling.
Web offset returns
“There is no perfect technology for IML,” Kelemen says. “IML exposes inefficiencies very quickly.” Too many discussions, he explains, start with the press rather than the business. “What matters is understanding where each technology delivers its best economic outcome.” Flexo, sheetfed offset and web-fed off set all have clear sweet spots, he says. “The mistake converters often make is pushing jobs onto presses simply because capacity is available, not because the press is the right fit.” That, he adds, leads to higher waste, longer turnaround times and lower margins.
His message is clear: “We need to shift the mindset from ‘which technology is better’ to ‘which technology fits this job’.” “When that framing changes,” he says, “technology decisions become strategic.”
In that context, he positions web-fed offset as a capacity rebalancing tool rather than a replacement. “Many converters already operate sheetfed offset and flexo successfully,” he notes. The issue, he explains, arises when those presses are asked to handle IML jobs out side their natural comfort zone, especially medium to longer runs with added-value features.
By introducing web-fed offset, he says, converters can redirect those jobs to a process that handles them more efficiently. “That frees sheetfed offset presses to focus on shorter runs, high graphic variation work, and jobs where fast changeovers matter most.” Flexo, he adds, can focus on applications where its speed and cost structure are strongest.
“Web-fed offset does not compete head-to-head with every press on the floor,” he says. “It absorbs workflow pressure points and improves overall plant efficiency.”
Universal platform fit
Kelemen explains that Rotatek’s Universal platform presses are designed for medium and longer-run IML jobs that demand high quality, stable registration and predictable costs. “Its modular architecture allows integration of different printing and finishing technologies, as well as features like variable data, traceability and premium embellishment,” he says. “That flexibility allows converters to move between high volume and specialised work without rebuilding their entire workflow.”
Kelemen’s closing thought to the audience is direct. “IML looks simple, but it exposes inefficiencies very quickly,” he says. “When technology choice aligns with job requirements and process discipline, IML becomes a scalable and reliable business rather than a risky niche.” He added, “Over the next decade, the global IML market is expected to grow at around 4.5% CAGR, which is a healthy number compared with the wider packaging market.”