Prof. Dr. Lutz Engisch, Institute Director at iP³ Leipzig – Institute for Printing, Processing and Packaging Leipzig, and B.Eng. Dominik Kantek of HTWK Leipzig share comparative LCA insights that challenge long-held assumptions about gravure printing’s environmental impact.
In conversation with Ben Daniel, Chief Editor of Packaging MEA, they explain why substrates, ink systems, cylinder reuse, and process standardization are more decisive than process perception when assessing the true carbon footprint of packaging production.
The discussion was particularly relevant for the Middle East, Africa and Asian subcontinent, where rotogravure remains a dominant process in flexible packaging. While flexography has grown in quality, automation and sustainability perception, gravure continues to retain a strong position in high-volume applications. The central question, therefore, is not whether gravure should be replaced, but whether its sustainability performance has been fairly assessed.
Ben: Why did HTWK Leipzig examine gravure’s carbon footprint, and why was real production data essential to the study?
Dr Lutz: This LCA project began around three years ago, initially as a survey-based study, before developing into a detailed CO₂ (carbon dioxide) assessment. The research was driven by both scientific interest and a request from the Global Rotogravure Association (GRA) to examine the carbon footprint of printing technologies more objectively.
The study focused on realistic industrial production scenarios rather than theoretical comparisons. So, this is important because sustainability assessments can be misleading if technologies are compared without common boundaries, comparable job structures and reliable process data.
Q: What did the LCA reveal about gravure’s carbon footprint compared with other print technologies?
Dr Lutz: The comparative LCA study set out to assess gravure printing against other established print technologies using a consistent cradle-to-gate methodology, rather than relying on broad assumptions about process sustainability. The research compared gravure with flexographic printing in flexible packaging, gravure with digital inkjet in décor printing, and gravure with offset printing in commercial magazine production.
The findings show that gravure does not inherently carry a higher carbon footprint than competing technologies when evaluated under comparable industrial conditions. Instead, the overall Product Carbon Footprint is driven primarily by the substrate, ink system, production parameters, run length and the reuse of process components, particularly gravure cylinders.
For packaging converters and brand owners, this is an important distinction. It shifts the sustainability discussion from a simple choice of printing process to a wider assessment of material efficiency, ink consumption, design optimisation, cylinder management and production standardisation. The study therefore suggests that gravure can remain a competitive and sustainable process when it is applied in the right production context and supported by disciplined process control.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Engisch Institute Director iP3
HTWK Leipzig
Q: What did the flexible packaging comparison reveal about the real carbon drivers in gravure and flexo-printed using the substrate that you used for the assessment?
Dr Lutz: In the flexible packaging comparison, where gravure and flexographic printing were assessed using printed BOPP film, the substrate was by far the dominant contributor to the Product Carbon Footprint. The study found that the film substrate accounted for around 70% to 80% of total CO₂ emissions, while inks contributed approximately 13% to 19%. By comparison, the printing form and process-related contribution was below 5%.
For packaging converters and brand owners, this is a critical finding. It shows that sustainability performance in flexible packaging is not determined by the choice of gravure or flexo alone. Material structure, substrate specification, ink laydown, colour strategy, white ink coverage and overall pack design can have a far greater influence on the final carbon footprint.
The implication is clear: meaningful carbon reduction requires a system-level approach. Converters and brand owners need to evaluate the complete printed pack — from film choice and barrier requirements to ink consumption, print design and production efficiency — rather than making process-based assumptions about which technology is more sustainable.
Q: What practical levers can gravure converters use to reduce carbon impact while maintaining packaging performance, print quality and product protection?
Dr Lutz: The study identified three practical levers for reducing the carbon impact of gravure-printed packaging: substrate selection, ink optimisation and cylinder reuse.
Substrate choice remains the most influential factor in the overall Product Carbon Footprint. Recyclable or bio-based materials can support lower emissions, but these decisions must be evaluated against the functional demands of the pack, including barrier performance, food safety, shelf life and product protection. For converters and brand owners, the sustainability benefit must therefore be balanced with packaging performance and regulatory compliance.
Ink optimisation is the second major area of opportunity. Reducing excessive ink laydown, solvent use, pigment loading and unnecessary white ink coverage can lower emissions without compromising print quality or brand impact. Better colour management, design discipline and ink recovery practices can also contribute to more efficient production.
Cylinder reuse is another important lever specific to gravure. The steel-base cylinder, which forms the reusable structural core of a gravure printing cylinder, was identified as the largest contributor during cylinder production. However, repeated reuse of the same steel base significantly reduces its specific carbon impact over time.
This makes cylinder standardisation, proper storage, accurate job planning and smarter cylinder management increasingly important for lower-impact gravure production. For packaging converters, the message is clear: carbon reduction in gravure is not achieved through one process change alone, but through disciplined control of materials, inks, design and reusable production assets.
Q: How should brand owners assess gravure versus flexo from a sustainability perspective?
Dr Lutz: Well! I would caution against simplistic comparisons. From the study’s findings, both gravure and flexo can show similar carbon footprints depending on the application, substrate, inks and production conditions. For brand owners, the more relevant question is how to optimise the complete packaging system rather than selecting a process based only on perception.
Dominik Kantek’s Perspective from the LCA Project
Q: Dominik, as a member of the HTWK Leipzig team involved in this LCA project, what key technical observations from the assessment would you highlight for the packaging and print industry?
The study produced an important finding for the packaging and print industry: when assessed under consistent conditions, flexography, offset, digital inkjet and rotogravure showed broadly comparable carbon footprint results across the selected use cases.
This reinforces the point that no single printing process should be judged in isolation. The environmental outcome depends on the application, substrate, ink system, production parameters, job length and process efficiency. For brand owners and converters, the decision should therefore be based on the complete packaging and production system, rather than on assumptions about one print technology being inherently more sustainable than another.
B Eng Dominik Kantek
Student
HTWK Leipzig
Conclusion
By Prof. Dr. Lutz Engisch
The LCA findings show that printing technologies should be assessed through data rather than perception. When evaluated under consistent conditions and realistic production scenarios, gravure, flexo, offset and digital printing can deliver comparable carbon footprint results. The future of packaging printing is therefore likely to be based on coexistence rather than replacement. Each process will continue to serve specific applications, depending on substrate, ink system, run length, energy use, process efficiency and production requirements.
For gravure, its future role will depend on combining its established strengths in print quality, colour stability, repeatability and high-volume production with measurable sustainability improvements. Advances in cylinder management, RFID-based tracking, alternative galvanic layers, laser engraving, material efficiency, ink optimisation and component reuse can help make gravure more resource efficient. Ultimately, gravure can remain a high-performance and responsible packaging print process if converters, suppliers and brand owners work together to improve efficiency, standardisation and sustainability across the complete packaging system.