The packaging industry is evolving rapidly, driven by a new reality where innovation and sustainability are inextricably linked demands. It’s no longer enough for packaging to simply hold a product. It must deliver on environmental responsibility while meeting high standards of function and design. Brands today face the challenge of balancing these priorities in a market that expects more, pushing the boundaries of what packaging can achieve.

Every year, the London Packaging Week Innovation Awards bring together a diverse and expert judging panel to evaluate the latest packaging breakthroughs. This 18-strong group rigorously assesses entries across various sectors, including beauty and spirits, fast-moving consumer goods, and luxury products, spotlighting innovations that blend creativity, sustainability, and practicality. Among these judges was Michael Carroll, a senior packaging specialist who brings over 20 years of experience at global brands including Nestlé and the Kellogg Company.

Sustainability was a clear and unmistakable theme throughout the judging process. Carroll says, “Certainly, the sustainability side of things stood out, especially in areas like compostability and end-of-life considerations.”

However, approaching sustainability effectively requires recognizing that packaging needs vary significantly across different sectors. As Carroll points out, “There’s no point trying to apply the same sustainability criteria to beauty packaging as you would to high volume food packaging—it’s horses for courses.”

Encouraging examples

Within this context, there were encouraging examples of innovation, such as the strong use of paper and emerging coating techniques showing real promise. Carroll adds, “Overall, there’s still work to be done.” Among the entries, one stood out in particular: a cup featuring a mineral coating PE free liner, which Carroll describes as “a game-changer” with “real potential to shift the industry.”

He cautions, however, that “it will require widespread adoption to have true impact.” Reflecting the industry’s growing maturity, the judging panel demonstrated strong alignment, with consensus on scoring and category classification, something Carroll finds “always reassuring.”

“The entire packaging journey needs to be considered, whether it’s fast-moving consumer goods or luxury. Sustainability must be built in, but the product still has to do its job.” He emphasizes the need for balance, saying, “You can’t sell a £500 product in a plain brown paper bag. It has to look like it’s worth £500.” Achieving the right equilibrium between form, function, and end-of-life is challenging. “Some brands are doing this well; others, not so much.”

An important trend, Carroll observed, was brands telling nuanced stories about their sustainability efforts. “Maybe the packaging isn’t 100% recyclable, but they’ve improved a key part of the process and reduced carbon emissions as a result.” He notes how people can become fixated on recyclability or recycled content, when, “from a CO2 reduction point of view, that’s not always the best solution.”

For instance, “sometimes incineration and energy recovery are less carbon intensive than collection, sorting, cleaning and recycling, the whole process needs thorough and independent LCA’s” This growing maturity is seen across industries. He cites a beauty brand that “might say, ‘We’re not aiming for recyclability, but we’ve created something with the lowest possible carbon footprint that still looks premium.’ That mindset is becoming more common.”

Incremental progress

Progress is often incremental rather than revolutionary. Carroll explains, “We’re not always going to see massive leaps forward. Sometimes it’s just a little bit of renovation.”

Small details, such as refining the packaging shape to enhance logistics or modifying secondary packaging, can significantly improve the overall efficiency of the system. “Those small, thoughtful details show that people are considering every aspect of packaging.” And some of the most exciting ideas solve problems that people didn’t even realize existed—until the submission explains, “Ah yes, that is a problem,” and the clever solution becomes clear. It’s about building on what’s come before “step by step.”

Sometimes, the solution demands a completely different approach. Carroll encourages thinking disruptively, “Look at packaging something that’s always been traditionally in one format and say, right, let’s try a different format that’s disruptive but also gives us carbon benefits, material efficiency, cost savings, and consumer benefits.” He shares an example from the awards: packaging Bombay mix, a solid product, in a drinks can, traditionally used for liquids. “There are challenges. You don’t have the internal pressure of a liquid to maintain strength, but there are ways around that.” The point is, “someone made the decision not to use the standard vertical form-fill bag like everyone else. They chose to disrupt, and that’s always good to see.”

On sustainability claims, Michael urges skepticism and demands transparency. “There are so many claims of ‘novel packaging,’ ‘innovative packaging,’ ‘sustainable packaging.’ But how sustainable is it really? What certification backs that up? In which markets is it actually recyclable?” He’s particularly wary of blanket claims like “100% recyclable,” “100% plastic-free,” or “100% paper.” He explains, “Very few things in this world are truly 100%. Take an aluminum drinks can, for example. It’s not entirely aluminum. It has inks, plastic linings, and polymer seals. So, when someone claims ‘100% aluminum,’ it’s technically inaccurate.”

The high cost of change

Another huge factor is the investment required for packaging changes. Carroll highlights the complexity: “Consumers don’t realize how much investment goes into changing packaging.” Packaging lines are built for specific formats, so pivoting means significant cost. From a branding standpoint, companies must either work closely with packaging suppliers to validate new designs before committing or be bold and invest upfront, guided by consumer research.

This isn’t cheap. Carroll says, “You’re not getting much change out £1 million for a packaging line. It can take over 18-months to design, order, install, trial, approve, and start running.” It’s a huge commitment. And “if it doesn’t work, you’re still paying that back over a 10-15-year period.”

Finally, Carroll celebrates the richness of the judging panel’s diversity. With experts from the beauty, wine, spirits, and FMCG sectors, there is valuable cross-pollination of ideas. “Someone from luxury might ask, ‘How can I uplift a fairly standard mass-produced item by borrowing quality cues from a premium whiskey bottle?’ Meanwhile, FMCG experts think about shaving off material or cost.” This exchange enriches the whole industry.

“It’s about learning from each other—taking finishing effects or design details from luxury brands and applying them to mainstream products to elevate perceived value, or conversely, using FMCG efficiency strategies to streamline premium packaging,” he adds.

Every detail counts, and this collaborative spirit is vital for advancing smarter, more sustainable packaging.