Anantshree Chaturvedi: Beyond The Sustainability Promise

As the packaging industry navigates mounting sustainability expectations, the challenge is shifting from making commitments to delivering measurable outcomes. In this conversation with Aditi Chakraborty, Anantshree Chaturvedi, Vice Chairman and CEO, Flex Films International, examines the economics of circularity, the role of technological innovation and the impact of evolving global regulations. He also discusses UFlex’s investments in recycling infrastructure, sustainable materials and next-generation packaging solutions, while highlighting the gap between corporate sustainability ambitions and actual market adoption.

Q. How much of the packaging industry's sustainability commitments around circularity, carbon neutrality and responsible packaging are translating into tangible action? Is the industry making meaningful progress, or is it still largely driven by regulatory expectations?

The packaging industry has made meaningful progress in translating sustainability commitments into action, driven by a combination of regulatory frameworks, technological advancements and growing consumer awareness. Regulations are playing an important role by setting measurable targets for recycled content, recyclability and extended producer responsibility, moving sustainability beyond voluntary commitments. Companies are investing in innovative materials, recycling technologies and resource-efficient processes to make packaging more sustainable without compromising on performance, quality or affordability.

However, the transition is not without challenges. Infrastructure for collection and segregation, availability of quality recycled materials and economic viability remain critical considerations. The industry must move from isolated initiatives to a collaborative, ecosystem-driven approach. Ultimately, the real measure of progress will be how effectively these commitments translate into measurable outcomes and scalable solutions.

Q. Can sustainable packaging achieve cost and performance parity with conventional materials, or will commercial viability remain a key barrier to its wider adoption?

I believe sustainable packaging will become cost-competitive with conventional materials in the short term and potentially more economical in the long run. While this will vary across materials and applications, if we examine conventional packaging, extracting virgin raw materials, particularly fossil fuels, involves complex and resource-intensive processes. By comparison, collecting and recycling materials already in circulation can be a far simpler and more efficient approach.

The real challenge lies in building the collection infrastructure and creating the ecosystem needed to make this transition. It also requires a shift in mindset among manufacturers and consumers. At UFlex, we recognise that this transformation must extend across the entire value chain. Consumer awareness will be equally important. When consumers begin choosing products packaged with recycled materials over those made from virgin resources, brands will have a stronger incentive to respond. As demand grows, economies of scale will improve, costs will come down, and sustainable packaging will become not just an environmental imperative but a commercially viable alternative.

Q. Flexible packaging presents an interesting contradiction. It offers material efficiency, reduces transportation weight and helps extend product shelf life, but multilayer structures can be difficult to recycle. How realistic is the industry's ambition to make flexible packaging circular? Are existing technologies sufficient to address this challenge at scale?

Making flexible packaging circular is a realistic ambition, provided we look beyond recyclability in its narrowest sense. Multilayer structures are often misunderstood. While they may be difficult to recycle back into the same product, they are highly suitable for upcycling into a range of applications, including textiles, jackets, bicycle components and automotive parts. Monolayer packaging, on the other hand, is generally more suitable for recycling into similar products, depending on material compatibility and the intended application, although some material loss is inevitable in the process. Technologies to process these materials already exist; the larger challenge is creating an efficient collection and recycling ecosystem that can operate at scale.

For instance, collecting one kilogram of plastic bottles is often easier and more economically attractive for waste pickers than collecting the same quantity of flexible packaging. This is where the economics of waste management need to change. We must create appropriate value for different waste streams and ensure that recyclers and manufacturers have an incentive to collect and process them. I believe technology, infrastructure and collaboration across the value chain must work together. Creating a viable market for recycled multilayer materials, where manufacturers are willing to pay for the value they generate, is essential to making the circular economy work.

Q. Global brands have made significant sustainability commitments, but there is often a gap between what they announce and what they implement across their supply chains. Are customers translating their sustainability targets into procurement decisions and long-term sourcing commitments, or does price continue to dominate purchasing decisions?

The gap between sustainability commitments and actual implementation remains significant. While companies like ours are actively pushing the sustainability agenda forward, many global brands and retailers continue to treat their targets as flexible commitments. Any major global event or economic disruption can become a reason to defer them. COVID-19, for instance, was a significant and unfortunate global crisis, but one of the first things many companies did was push their sustainability targets back by two or three years. This reflects the fact that many of these commitments are self-imposed rather than driven by binding global initiatives. Even commitments made under international frameworks, including COP targets, are often treated as flexible, with timelines being revised or extended.

At UFlex, we have been investing in sustainable alternatives for years. We apply the 4R Strategy (Reduce, Recycle, Reuse and Return) across our global sustainability framework, Project Plastic Fix, as well as in our water management initiatives. Our portfolio includes PCR-based packaging films with up to 100 per cent post-consumer recycled content, along with biodegradable films, both of which have been part of our offerings for many years.

However, when we engage with customers, I often refer to what I call the ‘dilemma of beautiful conversations’. While there is considerable interest in sustainability, circularity and the future of packaging, the eventual decision rests on three considerations: cost, regulatory requirements and consumer demand. Customers often tell us that they do not yet have consumers actively asking for these products and that they will return when demand becomes stronger. The reality is that market commitments remain very limited.

I consistently encourage some of the world's largest brands to make substantial commitments across their product portfolios. Yet, the orders we receive are often restricted to a handful of SKUs, with annual volumes running into a few million units rather than the tens of millions or billions that their public sustainability ambitions would suggest. There is clearly a disconnect between what companies communicate and what they are willing to implement at scale.

Ultimately, this comes down to the reluctance to take risks with established supply chains. The global economy remains deeply dependent on oil, which continues to be a major commodity and a fundamental input for the packaging industry. Moving towards biodegradable, bio-based alternatives, including glucose-based materials, requires companies to reconsider established sourcing models, even when viable alternatives are already available. The technology exists, and companies like UFlex are in a position to offer these solutions and support reliable supply chains. However, until sustainability becomes a decisive procurement criterion rather than simply a stated corporate ambition, price, convenience and supply-chain security will continue to dominate purchasing decisions.

Q. How are differing regulations across India, Europe and the US shaping sustainability, innovation and compliance in the global packaging industry? Are these evolving frameworks accelerating the transition to sustainable packaging?

The global packaging landscape is evolving along distinct pathways. Different countries and regions are adopting policies based on their individual priorities, economic requirements and domestic waste-management systems. India is particularly advanced in this regard. Its policy framework has been shaped with a strong focus on the future, and I am proud that we are part of this journey, contributing through our products and innovations. In several respects, India has taken a progressive approach to packaging sustainability.

In the US, for instance, there is no comprehensive federal framework governing product sustainability. Regulations are largely state-driven, with California often setting the direction that other states subsequently follow or adapt. Europe is certainly advanced, although the pace of implementation varies across countries. The Nordic nations and some other European markets are considerably ahead, while others are still evaluating the regulatory pathways they wish to adopt.

The approach is equally varied across Asia. China, for example, often shapes its policies around its import-export priorities and domestic waste-management requirements. Other Asian and South Asian countries follow similar approaches, while Japan has a relatively advanced framework that also reflects its domestic and import-related requirements.

However, much of the regulatory movement today is driven by national priorities rather than consumer demand or a unified assessment of what the environment ultimately requires. The real test will be how effectively these different approaches translate into measurable environmental outcomes.

Eventually, the global sustainability agenda will converge around one fundamental measure: carbon dioxide emissions. Every country will have to establish its carbon-reduction obligations and assess its contribution towards addressing climate change. These commitments will increasingly shape regulatory frameworks, industrial practices and the future direction of packaging innovation. Ultimately, the industry will have to move beyond compliance and focus on developing solutions that deliver measurable reductions in carbon emissions and a more sustainable packaging ecosystem.

Q. How has UFlex strengthened its sustainability strategy over the past three to five years? What key investments, product innovations and measurable outcomes reflect this shift?

At UFlex, sustainability is not a peripheral initiative; it is an integral part of our investment and business strategy. Over the last three to five years, we have significantly strengthened this commitment, backed by investments exceeding $60 million in recycling capacity and sustainable technologies, over and above our regular business investments. These investments focus on technologies that recover waste, process it and convert it into valuable new materials, creating a circular approach to resource utilisation.

Today, we run recycling operations across four countries: India, Egypt, Poland and Mexico. With annual capacity to recycle nearly 114,000 MT of PET and mixed flexible waste, we return much of our recycled output to the production of films and flexible packaging. In FY 2025-26 alone, we recycled 586 million post-consumer PET bottles and 10,237 MT of mixed flexible waste.

Visitors to our facilities can see the entire process: waste being collected, cleaned, washed and processed before emerging as new material. This shows that our commitment is not merely an ambition; it is backed by technologies and infrastructure that are operational today.

Our approach is also about preparing for the future rather than waiting for market demand or regulatory pressure to force change. We actively engage with customers, demonstrate the solutions already available and encourage them to become partners in adopting sustainable alternatives. Even if customers are not ready to make the transition immediately, we believe it is important to build the capabilities today so that we are prepared when the market evolves.

A good example is our shift towards paper straws in our aseptic packaging division. UFlex adopted paper straws well ahead of other manufacturers in the country, anticipating the industry's transition towards more sustainable alternatives. Bringing customers on board was a gradual process, but we had already developed the capability and were fully prepared when the transition gathered momentum.

This reflects our larger philosophy: sustainability must be built into business decisions, investments and product development well before it becomes an immediate commercial or regulatory requirement. We would rather invest in solutions today and help customers prepare for tomorrow than wait for the market to demand change.

Q. How is customer demand for sustainable packaging evolving in the US market? Are recycled-content films and carbon-footprint considerations influencing procurement decisions, and how does the US compare with Europe and India in adopting sustainable solutions?

The US market is witnessing a growing demand for sustainability disclosures, particularly around emissions, carbon footprint and the overall environmental impact of packaging. We increasingly receive requests from customers for detailed data—not just on the materials they purchase, but also on transportation, energy utilisation and the emissions across the supply chain. This indicates that sustainability awareness is gaining ground, although the shift is not uniform across all market segments.

Interestingly, this demand is more pronounced among small and mid-sized businesses, particularly those serving emerging and niche categories such as pet food, protein powders, nutritional supplements and health products. Large FMCG companies may also request sustainability data, but the extent to which it influences their actual procurement decisions is less evident.

One reason for this difference is access to finance. Smaller businesses, particularly those backed by private equity and venture capital, increasingly face sustainability-related questions from investors. Their ability to demonstrate responsible sourcing and a measurable environmental footprint can directly influence funding decisions and business partnerships. Consequently, they are more likely to translate sustainability considerations into immediate supplier choices.

Larger companies, meanwhile, may collect extensive sustainability data without necessarily allowing that data to influence procurement decisions at the same pace. Ultimately, commercial incentives drive change. When sustainability performance begins to determine access to capital, partnerships and business opportunities, companies have a stronger reason to act rather than simply report their progress.