15-18 June 2027
Crocus Expo, Moscow
Rising waste fees, stricter reportingrequirements, and retailer mandates are pushing packaging teams towards zero-plastic packaging targets that once sounded theoretical. Now they sit on procurement shortlists and capital planning meetings. The scale of the challenge is hard to ignore: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates global plastic waste reached 353 million tonnes (Mt) in 2019, with only 9% recycled after processing losses. For manufacturers across Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and wider Eurasia, the practical question is simple: which alternatives reduce plastic waste without slowing the line or creating new quality risks?
Paper-based solutions are gaining ground because they can quickly reduce plastic content, particularly in secondary packaging and rigid formats. Folding cartons, corrugated outers, moulded pulp inserts, and paper-based trays can all help cut plastic use where moisture and barrier demands allow.
That said, fibre does not “win” by default. Grease resistance, humidity exposure, cold chain storage, and seal integrity often drive the true decision. Many plants are also balancing downgauging against damage rates in transport, since switching materials that scuff or deform can quietly inflate returns and write-offs.
Barrier coatings make this space more interesting. Water-based and dispersion coatings can provide improved resistance while keeping structures closer to fibre-only designs, though recyclability depends on local recycling streams and how the coating behaves in re-pulping. This is where material samples on a spec sheet are not enough. Converter capability, print compatibility, and how the pack runs at speed matter more than the marketing claim.
Plastic reduction work often gets stuck because alternatives underperform in shelf life, sealing, or toughness. Mono-material designs offer a more practical approach in many applications, especially in flexible packaging.
Moving from mixed laminates to monostructures made of polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP) can simplify recycling and reduce material complexity while maintaining familiar handling characteristics on Form Fill Seal (FFS) lines. Sealing jaws, temperature control, and film stiffness still need careful matching, particularly when brands ask for thinner gauges. A small change in slip, coefficient of friction, or puncture resistance can manifest as misfeeds and seal failures long before it appears in the sustainability report.
Labels and adhesives also play a role. A recyclable pouch that carries an incompatible labelstock or an aggressive adhesive can lose the very benefit the material switch was intended to deliver. The most capable teams treat packaging as a system, not a shopping list of components.
Compostables and bio-based films attract interest because they appear to offer a clean break from conventional plastics. The hard part is aligning them with the realities of end-of-life.
Materials such as polylactic acid (PLA) and other compostable blends can work in tightly defined conditions, especially where industrial composting exists and the pack is likely to reach it. When that infrastructure is limited, these materials risk becoming contamination in recycling streams or landfill-bound waste that delivers little practical gain.
There is also a technical layer that cannot be skipped. Migration and product compatibility testing, seal strength validation, and shelf-life verification all shape the cost and timeline of adoption. Teams in food, beverage, and pharmaceuticals already know how quickly “promising” materials can turn into a line-side problem if qualification is rushed.
Plastic reduction does not only mean swapping substrates. In some categories, longer shelf life and fewer product losses can have a larger environmental and commercial impact than the material change alone.
That is why next-gen active packaging is attracting attention, particularly solutions designed to reduce oxidation, moisture-related impacts, or microbial risk. The best developments are being discussed alongside packaging engineering fundamentals: barrier requirements, sealing, headspace management, and compatibility with high-throughput converting and filling.
For procurement and engineering leaders, the point is less about chasing shiny innovations and more about distinguishing between what is pilot-ready and what is production-ready, with clear quality controls and supplier accountability.
Material change rarely succeeds in isolation. Films, trays, cartons, inks, adhesives, and coatings only deliver value when they run smoothly on the equipment already in place, or when upgrades are scoped with realistic payback.
RosUpack matters because it brings those interdependencies into one sourcing environment. It is also timed and located for the Eurasian market: RosUpack 2026 runs 16–19 June 2026 in Moscow at Crocus Expo. Beyond the materials conversation, visitors can compare converting, printing, inspection, and packaging production machinery across suppliers that understand regional compliance expectations and operating conditions.
Packaging teams do not need another abstract debate about plastic. They need materials and suppliers that can withstand production scrutiny, backed by credible testing and clear commercial terms.
For manufacturers and brand owners, now is a strong time to visit the exhibition and pressure-test alternative materials against real operational constraints. For solution providers and converters with scalable low-plastic formats, RosUpack offers a direct route to qualified buyers. An exhibit enquiry can open conversations with decision-makers who are actively budgeting for materials, equipment, and line upgrades tied to waste reduction.
