Bel Group accelerates the shift to paper packaging by taking a holistic transition approach

Plastic is a go-to for many food and beverage products thanks to it proven preservation capabilities, versatility, cost-effectiveness and light weight – but it also has a bad reputation among consumers concerned about waste and forever chemicals, which is prompting some CPGs to explore paper as a more planet- and consumer-friendly alternative.

Among the manufacturers at the forefront of the paperization packaging trend is Bel Group, which has committed to using certified sourced paper packaging for all of its iconic Babybel products made in five plants and distributed in 50 countries by 2027.

This transition has been a technical and industrial challenge, according to Clément Ernest, packaging research leader at Bel Group, who will be speaking about the company’s efforts at the Rethinking Materials Innovation and Investment Summit in London in late April.

He explains the materials can’t simply be swapped given food’s stringent safety and shelf-life requirements. Rather, he said, making the move to paper-based packaging requires a full system redesign and life-cycle analysis that includes sourcing considerations, efficacy testing, consumer acceptance and compliance, and end-of-life management at a local level.

In an exclusive Q&A ahead of his appearance at Rethinking Materials, Ernest shares what it takes to scale sustainable packaging, including where the biggest hurdles and opportunities lie, and why the old mantra of “reduce, recycle and reuse” doesn’t go far enough.

The following excerpt has been lightly edited for length.

Many sustainability efforts center around the classic 3Rs – reduce, recycle and reuse – but Bel Group has expanded this to a 5Rs model. Walk us through these five pillars and share, at a high level, how they shape decision-making across Bel Group’s portfolio and approach to packaging, from design through end-of-life.

At Bel, we use a 5R framework because packaging decisions are rarely “one and done” – they are a sequence of choices from design through to what happens after use. The five pillars are Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Restore and Recycle.

Refuse means challenging anything that isn’t essential for product protection, food safety, or a clear consumer function. Reduce is about using less material and lowering impact – for example, through right-sizing and optimizing headspace. Reuse is about exploring refill, bulk or reuse models where they are relevant for the category and compatible with hygiene and convenience requirements. Restore focuses on the origin of materials: increasing the use of recycled and/or responsibly sourced renewable materials (supported by certified supply chains) and reducing reliance on materials with higher impacts where feasible. Finally, Recycle is about designing for end-of-life in practice – i.e., aligning with local collection and sorting realities, using clear disposal guidance, and working with partners when infrastructure needs to evolve.

How do those additional “Rs” translate into real-world packaging decisions? For example, Bel has made some bold commitments around sustainable packaging – what are the most important principles guiding your packaging strategy today, and how have those evolved in the last few years?

The additional “Rs” help make decisions more robust. Reuse ensures we consider business-model innovation – not only material substitution – when that is the most effective lever. Restore helps avoid simplistic assumptions (for instance, that switching to paper automatically delivers a better outcome) by requiring us to consider the source of materials, their certification and recycled content where relevant, and how they perform across the value chain.

If I had to summarize our guiding principles today: start with what is strictly necessary, apply eco-design systematically and validate end-of-life pathways in real conditions. We support this with an internal eco-design procedure, portfolio roadmaps and decision tools to help teams make consistent choices across brands and markets.

What has evolved in recent years is a shift from recyclability as a design intention to a stronger focus on demonstrated performance in real systems – including local collection rules, sorting behavior, reprocessing performance and end-market quality. That’s where packaging claims become credible (or not), so we increasingly design and validate with those realities in mind.

“Paperization” is gaining momentum across the industry. From your perspective, what is driving this shift now?

Several factors are converging.

First, policy and regulation are becoming more structured, especially in Europe – not only targets, but also clearer definitions and increasing expectations around evidence and reporting. That encourages companies to anticipate and redesign earlier.

Second, there is strong pressure from retailers and many consumers to reduce plastic where it makes sense and to simplify packaging formats, provided product protection and food safety are maintained.

Third, innovation is maturing. Barrier coatings, material science and converting capabilities have progressed, so paper-based solutions can be explored in a wider set of applications than a few years ago – while still requiring careful validation, especially for demanding food and dairy uses.

Bel Group is actively investing in paperization – share with us the company’s pilot for paper-based packaging for Babybel, including what are the biggest technical challenges in replacing traditional materials.

Babybel is a good illustration because it is a global, high-volume product with strong technical and food-safety constraints. The project focuses on replacing the outer wrap with a paper-based solution designed to be compatible with paper recycling streams where appropriate, while keeping what is critical to the product protection system. The iconic red wax remains, because it plays a key role in protection, integrity and the consumer experience.

The main challenge is that this is not a simple material substitution. It requires a system redesign: maintaining protection, performance through transport and temperature variation and safety – while also being reliable at industrial speed across multiple production sites. That is why we are taking a stepwise test-and-learn approach with factory trials, real-world validation and consumer testing to ensure we preserve product quality and the Babybel experience.

In terms of scale, our approach is to expand progressively, market by market, as industrial validation is completed and local conditions (including recycling pathways) are confirmed. The UK is an initial market, followed by additional markets such as the US, Canada, and parts of Northern Europe, with further expansion considered over time.

What have been the biggest barriers to scaling new packaging formats across the markets? How much does progress depend on external systems, like recycling infrastructure or policy, versus internal innovation?

The biggest barrier is that scaling packaging is industrial reality across multiple sites: it requires consistent quality, safety and performance at speed. For Babybel, for example, the transition requires progressive adaptation of lines and processes across production sites, supported by industrial validation.

External systems also play a major role. Outcomes depend on recycling infrastructure, collection models, sorting performance and policy definitions. Differences in local rules (for example fiber thresholds) and the way commingled systems operate can materially change the real end-of-life result.

That’s why we innovate internally, and we also engage with industry coalitions and, where relevant, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiatives. For many packaging formats, circularity depends on collective alignment across design, collection, sorting and recycling capacity – not on one company acting alone.

Consumer acceptance is fundamental to the success of a pilot like this. How are consumers responding to these packaging changes? Are they noticing them? Valuing them? Is it going as expected or are there some surprises in their responses?

Two things matter most for consumers: the experience and the clarity.

On experience, the objective is to preserve what people value about the product — convenience, recognizability and ease of use — while improving the packaging profile. That’s why consumer testing is part of the approach as we scale transitions.

On clarity, consumers can only do the right thing if we make it easy: clear end-of-life instructions aligned with local systems are essential.

People do notice the change, but what drives impact is whether disposal is understood and followed in each market. That’s where we put a lot of attention: design, labeling and communication that match local collection and sorting rules.

Looking ahead, what are the most promising innovations in packaging that you think could reshape the industry in the next five to 10 years?

I see three promising directions.

One is next-generation fiber-based barriers: thinner and more efficient coating architectures – potentially with very thin functional layers – aiming to reach high performance while improving compatibility with recycling where relevant.

Second is bio-based functional coatings. Some approaches could deliver barrier performance with a reduced reliance on fossil-based layers, provided they mature industrially and demonstrate the right performance, safety and end-of-life outcomes.

And third is “systems” innovation: better data, traceability and standardized proof of compliance. As regulation evolves, this will push the industry to be more rigorous and transparent about real-world outcomes – not only more creative in design.

If you could change one thing – or inspire one change – to accelerate progress (such as via policy, infrastructure, industry practice, consumer behavior) – what would it be?

If I could pick one lever, it would be harmonizing and strengthening the end‑of‑life system: clearer, more consistent collection streams, better sorting performance, and scaled recycling capacity. Because when the system is robust, innovation scales faster and delivers real impact.

We can innovate internally (and we do), but circularity requires collective action: aligning design choices with what happens on the ground, supporting effective EPR where relevant, and working in partnership across the value chain.