The language of packaging is changing. For years, ‘sustainability’ has dominated boardroom conversations, conference agendas and marketing narratives. But as the industry grapples with rising material complexity, regulatory scrutiny and consumer expectations, that word is beginning to feel insufficient.
At the upcoming Respack Conference on responsible packaging to be hosted on 1 and 2 June 2026, Dr NC Saha, founder of Foundation for Innovative Packaging and Sustainability the organiser of Respack conferences, reframes the conversation with a more expansive lens. “Sustainable is a very small word. We should say responsible packaging,” he explains, underlining that the burden of change cannot rest on a single stakeholder.
In his view, responsibility extends across the entire value chain. Raw material manufacturers, converters, machinery suppliers, brand owners and regulators all play a role in determining the environmental and safety outcomes of packaging. “All the stakeholders in the value chain are responsible. Everyone is responsible to save the planet,” he notes.
This shift is more than semantic. It reflects the reality that packaging today operates at the intersection of science, public health, environmental impact and industrial economics. Decisions taken at the design stage influence recyclability, compliance and consumer safety downstream.
The scale of engagement at Respack reflects this broadened scope. What began as a modest initiative in 2022 has evolved into a two-day platform featuring 34 speakers and participation from over 30 brand owners, alongside policymakers, scientists and global technology providers. As Saha puts it, the objective is to create “a knowledge platform so that people can interact” and align perspectives across industries.
From sustainable to responsible
The shift from sustainability to responsibility is not rhetorical. It reflects a deeper recalibration of how the packaging industry defines its role in society. For years, sustainability has largely been interpreted through material choices or recyclability metrics. But Dr Saha argues that such a view is inherently limited.
“Sustainable is a very small word,” Saha says, pointing to the tendency to reduce complex challenges into singular solutions. “Responsible packaging means every stakeholder in the value chain has a role to play.”
This broader framing shifts the focus from isolated interventions to collective accountability. Packaging outcomes are no longer determined solely by the material selected or the design executed. They are shaped by a chain of decisions that begins with polymer development, moves through conversion and distribution, and ends with consumer use and disposal.
Saha emphasises that this interconnectedness is often overlooked. “Each segment is working in its own way, but ultimately they must come together,” he explains, highlighting the need for alignment between science, manufacturing and market demand.
The role of brand owners, in particular, has evolved. Where once material and technology providers dictated possibilities, brands are now setting the agenda. “Today, the brand owner is at the top. They are demanding solutions for society, for the environment, and for compliance,” Saha notes. This top-down pressure is forcing the rest of the value chain to respond with greater urgency and coordination.
At the same time, collaboration is replacing fragmentation. Saha points to emerging partnerships between recyclers and FMCG companies as evidence of a more integrated approach. “They know they cannot work in silos,” he says, adding that such alliances are essential to build a cohesive and scalable system.
The science gap
Innovation in packaging is accelerating. New materials, alternative substrates and recycling pathways are entering the market at a steady pace. Yet, beneath this momentum lies a more fundamental concern. The science underpinning these innovations is often not fully understood or consistently applied.
Dr Saha is unequivocal on this point. “One has to understand the science. One has to understand the polymer,” he says, cautioning against the assumption that material substitution alone can deliver sustainable outcomes.
The complexity begins at the molecular level. Plastics are not uniform materials but families of polymers with multiple grades and behaviours. “Polyethylene has about 150 grades. Polypropylene has about 250 grades,” Saha explains. When these materials enter the post-consumer waste stream, they are mixed, often without clear identification or segregation.
This creates a challenge during recycling. “When the post-consumer waste comes, we do not know what kind of grades are mixed up,” he notes, pointing to the unpredictable chemical reactions that can occur during thermal processing. The resulting material may look acceptable but behave differently in terms of safety and performance.
The implications for food packaging are significant. Packaging is not an inert layer. It interacts with the product it contains, influenced by temperature, storage conditions and time. “There is always a chance that something can go from the material to the food,” Saha says, underlining the importance of understanding migration behaviour.
This is where the distinction between global and specific migration becomes critical. Global migration measures the total transfer of substances, while specific migration focuses on individual elements such as heavy metals. Both require rigorous testing and compliance, yet industry adoption often outpaces scientific validation.
The gap is further compounded by a lack of comprehensive data. “We need a thorough study. We need data to guide decisions,” Saha emphasises, referring to ongoing efforts such as collaborative research initiatives to better understand recycled materials.
The message is clear. Innovation without scientific grounding risks creating unintended consequences. As the industry pushes forward, the challenge is not just to develop new materials, but to fully understand their behaviour across the packaging lifecycle.
Recycling is complex
Recycling has emerged as the industry’s most visible response to the packaging waste crisis. It is often presented as a straightforward solution. Collect, process and reuse. But Dr Saha dismantles that simplicity, arguing that recycling is not a single intervention but a system that is still evolving.
“Recycling is the only mechanism by which we can reduce energy and carbon footprint,” Saha says, acknowledging its importance. Yet, he is quick to add that the process is far from uniform, both in terms of technology and outcomes.
A key distinction lies between mechanical and chemical recycling. Mechanical recycling, which is widely practised, involves reprocessing plastic into secondary material. Chemical recycling, on the other hand, breaks polymers down to their monomer level. “Chemical recycling is the best method because you get monomer to monomer. It is as good as virgin material,” he explains.
However, scale becomes a decisive constraint. Chemical recycling requires significant volumes to be economically viable. “It should come in a million tonnes. It cannot be small scale,” Saha notes, pointing to the gap between technological potential and industrial feasibility.
Material behaviour adds another layer of complexity. PET has seen relatively successful recycling due to established collection systems and uniformity of grades. Polyolefins, by contrast, remain a challenge. “Polyolefin is the biggest problem with collection and segregation,” he says, highlighting the difficulty of managing mixed polymer streams.
The issue is not limited to processing. It extends to safety and application. While recycled materials are increasingly used in non-food applications, their use in food packaging remains tightly regulated. “For food, you have to be very careful. It ultimately comes to human consumption,” Saha cautions.
There are also unresolved technical questions. The industry lacks standardised methods to measure recycled content and assess how many times a material can be safely reprocessed. “We are writing 30% recycled content, but there is no test method to verify it,” he points out, identifying a critical gap in validation.
In this context, recycling cannot be viewed in isolation. It is tied to collection systems, material science, regulatory frameworks and economic viability. Without alignment across these elements, its effectiveness remains limited.
Regulation drives safety
Much of packaging’s impact on public health operates out of sight. Consumers rarely engage with standards, test methods or compliance frameworks. Yet, as Dr Saha points out, it is this invisible layer of regulation that ultimately determines whether packaging is safe for use.
At the centre of this framework lies the concept of migration. Packaging materials are not passive. They can interact with the product they contain, especially under specific conditions of temperature and time. “Something may come from the material to the product, and something may go from the product to the material,” Saha explains, describing the two-way nature of these interactions.
To control this, regulatory systems rely on two key parameters. Global migration measures the total transfer of substances from packaging to food, while specific migration focuses on individual elements such as heavy metals (non-volatile substance). “Global migration has a limit of 60 parts per million (ppm),” Saha notes, adding that compliance with both tests is essential for food-grade packaging.
The evolution of these standards reflects advances in scientific understanding. What began as a six-element framework for specific migration has expanded over time. “It became eight elements, now it is nine,” he says, pointing to the continuous refinement of safety thresholds as new data emerges.
India’s regulatory architecture has also matured. The integration of packaging into the food safety framework marked a turning point. “There was a time when it only said food-grade plastics. But what is food-grade? That question led to the development of proper packaging regulation,” Saha recalls. The result was a more structured approach that links material performance directly to human health outcomes.
Standards developed by the Bureau of Indian Standards further reinforce this system. While not all standards are mandatory, those related to safety and security are enforced. Saha cites examples where standardisation has had a tangible impact, particularly in ensuring consistency across materials used for essential goods.
At the same time, regulation must balance ambition with practicality. “If everything is made mandatory, MSMEs will be affected,” he notes, highlighting the need for a phased approach that allows industry to adapt without compromising safety.
In this layered ecosystem, regulation acts as both a safeguard and a guide. It translates scientific knowledge into enforceable limits, ensuring that innovation does not outpace safety. And while it may remain invisible to most consumers, its role is central to building trust in packaged products.
Design shapes outcomes
As the industry debates materials, polymers and recyclability, Dr Saha shifts attention to a more decisive lever. Design, he argues, will ultimately determine whether packaging delivers on its promise of responsibility.
“Design does not mean only graphics. It also means structural design,” Saha explains, emphasising that performance is engineered, not incidental. The way a package is conceived, its layers, form and functionality, defines how it behaves across its lifecycle.
This perspective challenges the tendency to equate sustainability with material substitution. Replacing one substrate with another does not automatically result in a better outcome. Without thoughtful design, it can lead to over-engineering, increased weight or compromised functionality. “Do not over-engineer,” Saha says, pointing to the need for balance between performance and efficiency.
Central to this approach is a deeper understanding of the product itself. Saha outlines a simple but effective framework. “Ask four questions. Who are you? How are you? Where do you stay? How long?” he says, referring to the nature of the product, its sensitivity, storage conditions and required shelf life. These parameters dictate the packaging solution, not the other way around.
The distinction becomes particularly relevant when comparing fresh and processed products. Fresh produce may require breathable, micro-perforated films to manage respiration, while processed foods demand high-barrier materials to prevent moisture, oxygen or light ingress. A single material solution cannot address both needs effectively.
Design also plays a critical role in aligning functionality with environmental goals. Weight reduction, elimination of unnecessary layers and ease of recyclability are all outcomes of design decisions. When executed well, design can reduce material usage without compromising safety or shelf life.
For Saha, this is where the next phase of innovation lies. Not in chasing the next material, but in integrating science, application and context into smarter design frameworks. “The future of responsible packaging,” he suggests, “will be shaped less by what materials are used, and more by how intelligently they are deployed.”
Collaboration over silos
If there is a single thread running through Dr Saha’s thinking, it is this. Packaging cannot be solved in isolation. The complexity of materials, regulations and end-use demands has outgrown siloed approaches.
“There was a time when everyone worked in their own space. That is no longer possible,” Saha says, pointing to the interdependence that now defines the ecosystem. Polymer producers, converters, recyclers and brand owners are no longer sequential actors. They are co-creators of outcomes.
This shift is most visible in the role of brand owners. Once passive recipients of technological capability, they now set the direction. “Today, the brand owner is at the top. They are demanding solutions for the environment and for society,” he notes. That demand is pushing suppliers, recyclers and technology providers to align more closely than before.
New forms of collaboration are beginning to emerge. Partnerships between FMCG companies and recyclers, joint development initiatives and shared investments signal a move towards integrated thinking. “They know they cannot work alone,” Saha says, describing a shift from transactional relationships to strategic alliances.