In modern times, packaging sits at the intersection between sustainability, cost, safety, marketing, and plenty of other crucial macro trends. It has evolved from simply being a straightforward business decision and now reflects how businesses actually operate. How did we get here? Peter Stael, owner and partner at Across-Consult, takes a closer look.
Packaging as a meeting point of realities
For a long time, maybe until the nineties or early 2000’s, packaging procurement was relatively straightforward.
A buyer contacted a packaging producer, specifications were discussed, and then price, delivery reliability, and quality were negotiated.
This has changed dramatically over the past decades. Markets have evolved rapidly — sometimes every few years. Around 2000 the packaging market was still largely European. Today companies must understand markets in Turkey, India and China.
Packaging increasingly acts as a mirror of how organisations actually work. All the strengths and weaknesses of a company come together in that very moment when the consumer sees the packaging.
To give some examples: the consumer sees the claims the producer gives: “100% recyclable!” (although logically impossible); a beautiful product in a bowl (ah no, it is just a service suggestion).
Once I had ‘tortilla chips cheese taste’, with no cheese in the ingredients. Packaging that are said to be easy open, but my wife has rheumatic hands, and it is impossible for her to even grab the lid.
The list is endless.
And it is logical. Because all decisions related more directly to packaging itself became increasingly important. Decisions needed to balance multiple dimensions simultaneously.
Food safety, but also shelf-life performance.
Anti-counterfeiting protection also: I always thought this was a responsibility for companies that produce perfumes, or, like in China, Danone baby-food. That dream was over when our client, a snack-producer in Germany, was confronted with counterfeiting for a bag that was sold for € 1.19.
And the list continues: production efficiency obviously. But also sustainability expectations: Will we pack in paper (which towards the consumer shows care for the environment), or do we do the same in flexible plastics (less ‘sexy’, but cheaper, giving more protection to the product and has a lower CO2-emission than paper in Life Cycle Assessments)?
Regulatory compliance, supply chain reliability, marketing impact, cost pressure, and, nowadays more and more requested, interconnectivity, internet of things, individual packaging.
What used to be a bilateral discussion between buyer and supplier has increasingly become a multi- disciplinary system. The packaging producer needs to consider and answer all these questions. They become a multi-tasker.
And the same happens also on the side of the buying company: packaging becomes the central place where many organisational decisions become visible at the same time. The individual pack on the shelf is the showcase, is the link between that producer and that consumer. The moment the consumer sees the pack on the shelf, at that very moment it is also a reflection of the producer.
It is the central point, the focus, the final outcome of an internal process inside that company. In that sense packaging is no longer only a technical solution. It increasingly becomes a mirror of the organisation itself.
Packaging that tells the truth
Modern packaging technologies are increasingly able to generate information about what actually happens in products and supply chains.
We have been working on a time–temperature indicator calibrated to the specific product on which it is applied. The indicator shows a dynamic shelf-life indication, much more precise than the static date stamp.
Sensors can be attached directly to packaging as labels also (for example Avery Dennison) or even embedded into the carton or the flexible plastics themselves. Companies like Wiliot and QY- packaging have these products in development.
A sensor, a tag, becomes more and more interesting as Food Drink Europe (the branch organisation of European food and beverage-producing companies), for example advocates these kinds of solutions in order to have a central focus point to attach all known information to.
These technologies move information from the laboratory into the packaging itself. The time- & temperature indicator gives a proxy of the logistical process; another tag has been developed in Portugal, which gives even an indication of the biological status itself.
So these packaging-solutions show not only how well the cold chain was maintained, but also how microbial activity evolves inside the product and therefore indicated how materials behave in real production environments.
For the first time packaging technologies begin to show the real behaviour of products inside the supply chain.
So, in that sense packaging increasingly becomes packaging that tells the truth. It reveals aspects that were previously invisible. And customers appreciate this kind of solutions. The time and temperature indicator received overwhelming positive feedback from customers in traditional retail in Norway and in customer-testing in the foodservice sector by in the Netherlands and Flanders.
This is a good development. It gives insight in the process, into the quality, in all periods of the cool chain. From the producer all the way to the refrigerator of the final customer. Whilst developing these products it visualises something else also. As this new transparency, from a different perspective, also creates a challenge!
Making reality visible does not automatically mean that organisations will recognise or accept that reality. This may sound strange, but I will explain this in more detail.
The Thomas Theorem – when interpretation shapes reality
More than a century ago sociologists William I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas formulated a principle that remains surprisingly relevant for modern supply chains:
“If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”
This principle – known as the Thomas Theorem – explains how perceptions and interpretations shape real-world outcomes. In packaging projects this phenomenon appears frequently – both in innovation projects and in routine packaging developments.
For our loyal client from Saudi-Arabia we have done many print sessions over the whole world. Despite careful pre-print processes, results still sometimes fail to match expectations. Also, for more or less standard products like sleeves for tin cans in Thailand, or bags for pasta close to Naples. This shows that even well-defined technical processes can fail when organisations interpret them differently.
We experienced that innovative technologies that function well technically (demonstrated in the lab, proven in an industrial environment, checked by the client from all sides) may still fail to be adopted when organisations interpret them differently.
Why? Sometimes because the narratives somewhere did not fit to each other. The new technology can be seen as a regulatory risk, even if it is not. As an operational complexity, even if the complexity can be managed rather well.
In situations like these, interpretation can become real in its consequences. Even when the technical facts suggest otherwise. “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”
This explains why innovations that technically work sometimes struggle to gain acceptance. The challenge is not only technological. It is also organisational. It happens that technology sometimes cannot solve problems by its’ own. Technology can reveal a lot, but organisations still need mechanisms to interpret that information correctly.
Packaging as a diagnostic lens
Because packaging sits at the intersection of multiple disciplines, it often reveals how well those disciplines are aligned.
A packaging system reflects the biological status of the product, the technical competence of the packaging solution, the organisational coordination inside the company, the communication towards the market.
If these dimensions are well aligned, packaging systems tend to function smoothly. If they are not aligned, the first symptoms often appear in packaging: unexpected shelf-life limitations, production inefficiencies, recurring complaints, unrealistic claims, misunderstandings between supply chain partners.
Packaging becomes a diagnostic lens.
Not because packaging causes organisational problems, but because packaging sits exactly where many decisions meet.
In that sense packaging becomes one of the most honest indicators of how well different parts of an organisation work together.
The hidden challenge in modern packaging supply chains
As mentioned before, the complexity of packaging systems has significantly increased in the last decades. And this growing complexity therefore created another challenge: fragmentation of knowledge.
Different actors in the supply chain operate with different expertise. Brand owners focus on market positioning, brand strategy, product concepts. Food producers focus on process stability, food safety, operational efficiency. Packaging converters focus on materials, printing technologies, machine performance.
Each perspective is legitimate, but none of them alone captures the full system. This creates what can be called a knowledge translation problem. Many conflicts in packaging projects are not material problems or quality problems. They are translation problems between disciplines.
Boundary spanning – connecting disciplines
In development of new packaging in general and in the development of innovative packaging specifically, such situations give rise to a specific role: the boundary spanner.
A boundary spanner operates at the interface between disciplines, organisations and knowledge domains.Rather than focusing on a single expertise, the role focuses on translation. Translating biological status into technical requirements. Translating technical limitations into business decisions. Translating marketing expectations into operational feasibility. Translating regulatory frameworks into practical solutions.
As packaging systems become more complex, the need for such translation roles increases. The more disciplines become involved in packaging decisions, the more important it becomes that someone helps align their perspectives.
A very interesting organisational choice, for example, was made by a top 2 Belgian retailer. They appointed a business-developer, with the specific task to support start-ups, or in general, new potential suppliers, to enhance their product to the required quality level. These start-ups were not just judged on their performance; they were supported to enhance the performance to the required level.
This type of work reflects a boundary-spanning role between technical disciplines, supply chains and organisational decision-making. This role should not be limited to technical advice only. It is about helping organisations align different realities with all the mentioned elements: biology inside the product, technological status of the packaging, organisational reality inside the company, and communication towards the market.
Packaging sits exactly at the intersection of these realities, and the complexity of today’s packaging systems requires a translator, a bridge, someone that crosses the waters towards the other disciplines.
Conclusion: innovation requires translation
One observation from many packaging projects captures this dynamic. Packaging technologies can reveal reality. But organisations must still be able to recognise and interpret that reality.
When packaging begins to make biological or operational processes visible, it often exposes underlying organisational assumptions. And when those assumptions are challenged, interpretation – as described in the Thomas Theorem – can strongly influence the outcome.
Modern packaging systems increasingly generate data and insights about real product behaviour.
In that sense packaging technologies can help supply chains better understand reality. But technology alone is not enough. Supply chains must also develop the ability to interpret that information across disciplinary boundaries.
In other words: packaging that tells the truth is valuable. But supply chains also need people who can help organisations understand what that truth means. Or as one simple observation from practice suggests: Packaging can reveal the reality. Organisations must still learn to recognise it.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to packaging innovation in 2026
Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: what to know in 2026
Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation
No comments yet