Drink in the trends

The sales of closures are intrinsically linked to those of packaging, with particular formats either requiring or suggesting certain closures or a choice of closures. Packaging is rarely engineered or designed in response to a closure development, although both elements need to function optimally together. A significant proportion of closure sales are, therefore, dictated either by preferred or generic packaging or installed capacity.

This tendency to favour existing frameworks has been compounded by volatility in resin pricing and the general economic downturn, which has encouraged a focus on saving material and cost, delivering closures that require a minimal adaptation of installed technology.

If there is one guiding theme of the last three years it is this focus on efficient cost reduction and taking closures to an appropriateness refined and targeted to particular sectors and product groups. For the most part, brand owners have welcomed and encouraged this focus, keen as they have been to control costs.

That does not mean that the market has lacked for innovation. This has been evidenced in sports caps, dosing caps and other functional solutions. It does, however, mean that, particularly in plastics closures, there has been a polarisation on the basis of cost and its corollary, weight.

Again, a growing environmental awareness has required more efficient use of scarce resources through developments in material specifications and reinforced reductions in weight.

However, other important influences are expected to take on greater importance as economic recovery strengthens. These include a greater consumer desire for convenience, improvements in the functionality of packaging and the requirement of suppliers to improve overall brand image and on-shelf presence.

Whichever the emphasis, packaging and closure innovation is required to meet the various and changing needs of all sections of the supply chain – from the manufacturer through to consumer – within an increasingly demanding regulatory environment.

It is a recipe of lower cost requirements allied to higher technical performance. This has been compounded by the fact that much of the R&D in closure technology, particularly at the premium end, has taken place in developed markets and then spread rapidly to developing markets. These developing markets have the necessary consumption growth but lower cost models.

As with packaging, lightweighting remains the most evident trend, as beverage closure suppliers continue to develop products that satisfy both environment-conscious and cost-conscious demands. These concerns have seen suppliers and brand owners alike more obviously prioritise appropriate closures for different beverage sectors. However, opportunities for further light-weighting may now be more limited as most of the possible savings have already been made:

Neck finish – suppliers are gradually adopting and extending lightweight closure ranges for PET bottles, many appropriate for shorter neck finishes, principally PCO 1881. Most claim to contribute to material savings of up to 30%.

Hybrid closures – the adoption of shorter neck finishes will commonly require substantial CAPEX investment in order to realise materials cost savings. An intermediate solution is one that lightens the neck on a standard finish. Interestingly, there is relatively little saving to be had in the closure weight itself within this solution.

Snap-on – a next step, suitable only for value (non-premium) still products, will be snap-on closures where the thread is sacrificed to save yet more weight. Some are beginning to be seen in bottled water. However, the difficulty of providing visible tamper evidence seems sure to limit the opportunity to take-home multipacks only.

There is a feeling that light-weighting – perhaps not in every category – is pushing up against its limits. Further savings may be capable of being made in the technology that helps to deliver these closures, i.e, moulds, assemblies, chucks and collets.

All packaging is a compromise between cost and innovation, which in the case of closures is commonly manifested as increased functionality. Some of the approaches being adopted include: Dosing caps – the last three years have seen a proliferation of solutions that deliver vitamins and minerals, usually from a chamber, in liquid or powdered form into a beverage at the point of consumption. Obvious advantages include fresh and efficacious ingredient and lower CAPEX investment (capper rather than line). Drawbacks include reduced line speeds and the delivery of RTS (ready to serve) as opposed to RTD (ready to drink) beverages.

Next generation sports caps – whilst not all sports cap development may be apparent aesthetically, improvements in flow and tamper evidence, as well as weight and on-line performance, allow suppliers to claim a next generation is being offered. Consumers may not appreciate the distinction, but if brand owners are able to offer improved performance without significant CAPEX or consumer education – and, ideally, reduced cost – the developments will be welcomed. Addressing cost has seen the emergence of two-piece and now one-piece sports closures. Providing added functionality has seen the commercialisation of a number of non-spill solutions.

Hot-fill – just as sports caps can now be one-piece, hot-fill and wide mouth closures (also one-piece) are available, a number without liners. Commonly, these cleverly use the increased flexibility – or lower rigidity – of the closure to improve the seal.

Closures for cans and glass are also being developed. Those for cans have tended to focus on three areas, each to some extent replicating the advantages of competitor pack types:

Light-weighting – as part of a general reduction in weight, most obvious in wall thickness, can ends and ring-pulls have been amended. However, this has been limited because of the contribution

each makes to can integrity and the need to preserve strength in the ring-pull,

in particular.

Functionality – additional functionality has been provided with the improvement of full aperture ends that lend consumption from a can, particular for beer, a similar experience to drinking from a glass – at least, that is the intention.

Resealability – addressing resealability to convert cans into a more versatile on-the-go consumption choice, has involved replicating the bottle with a bottle can – all metal with a metal screw top lid – or replicating a closure with one-hand resealable solutions, such as those from Ball being utilised in energy drinks.

Those for wine and alcohol products have been developed latterly along

three parameters:

Low cost – where until recently, most wine was sealed with a cork, recent years have seen the successful adoption of metal screw tops and synthetic corks. Now plastics screw caps and lighter weight synthetic corks are being offered to wine producers, emphasising the organoleptic qualities of the former and the lower cycle times and lower cost of the latter.

Cork replacement (sparkling wines) – at least two solutions to bulky cork and frame closures for champagnes and sparkling wines are being commercialised, one a lever, the other a popper. Each has the ability to preserve carbonation through resealability but, depending on the product, may also have a legislative hurdle to clear.

Improved tamper evidence – this has been a focus in spirits to address a rise in counterfeiting, particularly as demand grows strongly for Western products

in major Asian markets, notably India

and China.

In 2010, closures sold across soft drinks, dairy drinks and beer in the geographies assessed totalled just over 1 trillion. Of this, plastics closures, inclusive of those for cartons and sports caps and standard screw caps, took a 42% share on 440 billion units, outselling metal closures (325 billion) and ring-pull closures (250 billion). Other closures totalled a little below 40 billion, while there are still an estimated 210 billion packs sold each year without closures.

Demand in 2003 was at around 820 billion units per year, plastics taking 34% to metal's 35%, ring-pulls' share higher at 27% and others at around 3%. While demand for all types of closure are ahead, it is increasing usage of plastics closures that has underpinned the addition of more than 200 billion units to annual sales since 2003.

In the years between 2003 and 2010, plastics closures saw their volumes increase at around 6.5% per year, a combination of more beverages being sold in plastics bottles, but also the conversion from other closures to plastics. In the years to 2015 the growth rate will decline, but still be amongst the more robust in beverages, at more than 5%. The CAGR for ring-pulls will be maintained at around 1.8%, for other closures at between 8% and 9%. The CAGR for metal closures will increase by a point and overall volume will maintain growth of between 3% and 4% throughout the period 2003 to 2015.

Of key interest to closure suppliers will be how much additional business the strong growth of beverages is expected to deliver. The Innovation in Beverage Closures special report by Canadean gives cumulative totals by type, adding together the incremental volume forecast for each year over 2010 volumes to give an overall total equivalent to the additional closures expected to be sold between the end of 2010 and the end of 2015.

The forecast shows that incremental volume for the years 2010 to 2015 is expected to total around 600 billion closures, around 60% of which will be plastics screw variants, about 370 billion. Metal closures will account for another 20 billion ring-pull and other types a respective 70 billion and 60 billion each. The annual average will have declined a little from around 140 billion units for the period 2003 to 2010 to 120 billion units

up to 2015. ¦