The hidden supply chain behind packaging shortages

Packaging shortages are not always caused by a lack of raw materials. Disruptions to the specialist chemicals that give plastic packaging its essential properties can create bottlenecks across global supply chains, even when the main materials remain readily available.

When packaging shortages make headlines, attention typically turns to glass, aluminium, paper or plastic resins. Yet a less visible group of ingredients can be just as critical to keeping production lines running.

Chemical additives, pigments and masterbatches help determine the strength, flexibility, appearance and durability of plastic packaging. Although they account for a relatively small proportion of finished materials, their absence can prevent manufacturers from meeting technical, commercial or regulatory requirements.

The vulnerability lies in how these ingredients are produced and sourced. Certain specialist chemicals depend on a limited number of manufacturing facilities, while replacing an established formulation can require extensive testing and approval.

A disruption at an upstream chemical supplier can therefore affect packaging manufacturers across multiple markets, even when supplies of polyethylene, polypropylene and other primary polymers remain uninterrupted.

For an industry focused on securing its main raw materials, this represents a supply chain risk that is easily overlooked.

Why additives and masterbatches matter

Plastic packaging rarely consists of polymer resin alone.

Manufacturers rely on chemical additives to achieve the properties required for applications ranging from food containers and pharmaceutical bottles to agricultural films and industrial packaging.

Antioxidants protect polymers against degradation during processing and use. Ultraviolet (UV) stabilisers reduce damage caused by sunlight, while processing aids improve manufacturing efficiency and material consistency.

Other additives influence flexibility, impact resistance, colour, opacity and surface characteristics.

Many of these ingredients are incorporated through masterbatches: concentrated mixtures of pigments, additives or both, dispersed in a carrier resin compatible with the main polymer.

Masterbatches allow packaging converters to introduce functional ingredients in controlled quantities, helping maintain consistent performance and appearance during production.

The distinction between additives and masterbatches is important. Chemical manufacturers produce individual functional ingredients, while masterbatch producers formulate and combine them into products designed for specific polymers, manufacturing processes and applications.

A shortage at either stage can disrupt production.

A converter may have sufficient polyethylene or polypropylene to fulfil an order but still be unable to manufacture packaging to specification without an approved colourant, stabiliser or processing additive.

The availability of these specialist ingredients can therefore determine whether production continues, rather than simply influence purchasing costs.

A fragmented market with concentrated dependencies

The global additives supply chain spans chemical producers, specialist formulators, masterbatch manufacturers, distributors and packaging converters.

Major chemical suppliers include BASF, Clariant, Songwon and ADEKA, while companies such as Avient, Ampacet and Tosaf operate in the masterbatch market.

However, the presence of numerous suppliers does not necessarily mean that alternative sources are readily available.

Certain additives require specialised manufacturing processes, proprietary formulations or chemical intermediates produced at relatively few facilities. Multiple masterbatch suppliers may also depend on the same upstream pigment or stabiliser producer.

These shared dependencies can be difficult for packaging buyers to identify.

For example, a manufacturer purchasing similar masterbatches from two suppliers might believe it has diversified its procurement risk. If both depend on the same critical chemical ingredient, a disruption upstream could affect both sources simultaneously.

The degree of concentration varies between additive categories and individual chemical grades. Commodity products may have several viable alternatives, while specialised formulations can offer considerably less flexibility.

For packaging manufacturers, the important question is not simply how many suppliers operate in a market, but how many can deliver an equivalent, qualified product when required.

How a chemical plant disruption can affect global packaging production

A fire, equipment failure, unplanned shutdown or regulatory intervention at a chemical production facility can have consequences far beyond the affected site.

An interruption to the supply of a specialist chemical can constrain masterbatch production. Shortages can then spread to packaging converters, potentially delaying deliveries to food producers, pharmaceutical companies and consumer goods manufacturers.

The effects may not become apparent immediately.

Existing inventories can allow downstream manufacturers to maintain production temporarily, concealing the extent of the disruption until stocks begin to run low.

By then, competing manufacturers may already be seeking supplies from the same limited pool of alternative producers.

Replacing an unavailable additive is rarely as simple as switching suppliers.

Differences in chemical composition, concentration or performance can affect polymer processing, colour consistency, mechanical properties and the durability of finished packaging.

Even when a substitute is commercially available, manufacturers may need laboratory assessments, production trials and customer approval before introducing it.

An alternative material being available does not necessarily mean it is approved for use.

For converters working to tightly controlled specifications, this qualification process can prolong the effects of a relatively short upstream disruption.

Why food and pharmaceutical packaging are particularly exposed

The consequences of an additive shortage depend heavily on the packaging application.

In food packaging, additives influence properties such as flexibility, opacity, light protection and resistance to processing conditions. Changes in material composition may also affect compliance with food-contact requirements.

Manufacturers must therefore establish whether replacement formulations remain suitable for their intended applications, including compliance with relevant chemical migration limits.

Pharmaceutical packaging can present even more demanding qualification requirements.

Changes to additives or masterbatches may affect material consistency, product protection or compatibility with the packaged medicine. Depending on the application and regulatory requirements, manufacturers may need additional testing, change-control documentation or regulatory assessment.

These obligations can limit how quickly alternative materials can be introduced.

Other packaging sectors face different challenges.

Personal care and household product packaging often requires precise colour matching, consistent appearance and resistance to environmental conditions. Agricultural and industrial packaging may depend on specific UV stabilisation or mechanical properties to withstand prolonged outdoor exposure.

A formulation change that appears minor from a procurement perspective can therefore have significant implications for manufacturing and product performance.

This explains why an additive shortage may be manageable for one packaging application but highly disruptive for another.

Regulatory changes add another layer of supply risk

Physical disruptions are not the only threat to additive availability.

Changes to chemical regulations can also affect established formulations, forcing packaging manufacturers to reassess ingredients, qualify substitutes or modify production processes.

For companies operating internationally, differences between regulatory frameworks add further complexity.

In the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 establishes requirements for plastic materials intended to come into contact with food, including rules governing authorised substances and chemical migration.

Amendments introduced through Regulation (EU) 2025/351, which entered into force in March 2025, introduced further provisions relating to material composition, quality control, manufacturing practices and supporting documentation.

The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which began applying on 12 August 2026, introduced further requirements, including restrictions on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food-contact packaging.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined in January 2025 that 35 food-contact notifications covering certain PFAS-containing grease-proofing substances used in paper and paperboard packaging were no longer effective. The decision followed the discontinuation of the relevant uses by manufacturers or suppliers.

Although these developments affect different materials and applications, they demonstrate how regulatory changes can influence packaging formulations and sourcing decisions.

An alternative ingredient may be technically suitable but unusable in a particular market without the necessary testing, approvals or documentation.

Manufacturers supplying several jurisdictions may consequently have fewer viable substitutes than their supplier lists suggest.

Regulatory compliance and supply chain resilience are therefore closely connected.

Industry disruptions reveal the hidden vulnerability

Previous disruptions across the chemical industry demonstrate how problems at upstream production facilities can affect multiple downstream markets.

In March 2019, an explosion and fire at a chemical industrial park in China’s Jiangsu province raised concerns about chemical production and supply.

The British Coatings Federation subsequently reported shortages of ingredients used in paints, coatings and printing inks, including certain pigments and preservatives.

Although the incident was not specifically a packaging additive shortage, it illustrated how disruption to specialist chemical production can affect industries beyond the immediate suppliers involved.

Further evidence of the plastics industry’s dependence on a wider range of inputs emerged in 2026.

A British Plastics Federation (BPF) survey of 104 member companies, conducted in March 2026, found that 58% had experienced a significant or severe operational impact associated with the US-Iran conflict.

More than 63% reported delayed or cancelled orders, while 98% had experienced increases in raw material or operational costs.

Importantly, the BPF reported that disruption extended beyond virgin polymers to additives, masterbatches, components, machinery and equipment.

The findings do not establish that additive shortages caused all the reported production difficulties. They do, however, demonstrate that supply pressures can affect a much broader range of inputs than the primary polymers that typically dominate industry discussions.

For packaging manufacturers, the implications extend beyond any single incident.

Supply chain vulnerabilities can originate several stages upstream, with the consequences becoming apparent only when an essential ingredient is no longer available.

Why switching suppliers is not always straightforward

Diversifying suppliers is a common response to supply chain uncertainty, but it can be particularly challenging for specialist additives and masterbatches.

Unlike many commodity materials, these products are often selected to meet precise technical specifications.

A replacement must perform consistently within the existing polymer formulation and manufacturing process.

Differences in pigment dispersion, thermal stability, additive concentration or material compatibility can influence the appearance and performance of finished packaging.

Manufacturers may therefore need laboratory testing, pilot-scale trials and full production assessments before approving a substitute.

For regulated applications, additional documentation, compliance checks and customer approval may also be required.

The time involved varies by material and application, but the commercial consequences can be substantial when production depends on an ingredient that cannot be immediately replaced.

A supplier offering a broadly similar product is not necessarily a qualified alternative.

This distinction is critical when assessing procurement resilience.

Having two suppliers on an approved purchasing list offers limited protection if both rely on the same upstream chemical producer. Similarly, identifying a potential replacement only after a shortage begins may be too late to avoid disruption.

Effective diversification requires manufacturers to understand where their suppliers obtain critical ingredients and what would be involved in switching to an alternative formulation.

Building resilience beyond primary raw materials

Reducing these vulnerabilities requires packaging manufacturers to look beyond their immediate suppliers.

The first step is identifying the additives and masterbatches essential to each product’s performance and understanding where those ingredients originate.

Mapping upstream suppliers can reveal shared dependencies and potential single points of failure, particularly where specialised formulations are used across several product lines.

Pre-qualifying alternative materials is another important measure.

Where technically and commercially feasible, manufacturers can test substitute additives and masterbatches before a disruption occurs, reducing the time needed to introduce them when supplies become constrained.

Inventory planning also plays a role.

Maintaining appropriate safety stocks of critical ingredients can provide additional time to respond to interruptions. However, stockholding decisions must account for shelf life, storage conditions, working capital and the availability of alternatives.

The appropriate level of protection will depend on each ingredient’s importance and the consequences of its absence.

Closer collaboration with chemical suppliers and masterbatch producers can provide further benefits.

Greater visibility into manufacturing locations, production capacity, sourcing arrangements and potential regulatory changes can help packaging companies identify risks earlier.

Long-term purchasing agreements and clearer procedures for communicating supply disruptions may also improve continuity, although they cannot eliminate exposure to major incidents.

For food and pharmaceutical packaging, maintaining up-to-date material specifications, compliance declarations and change-control documentation is particularly important.

These records can support the assessment of alternative formulations and help manufacturers respond more efficiently when substitutions become necessary.

Ultimately, improving resilience means treating specialist chemical ingredients as critical manufacturing inputs rather than minor components of a larger raw material purchase.

The next packaging shortage could start upstream

Packaging supply chain discussions have traditionally focused on the materials that make up most of the finished product.

Polymers, paper, glass and aluminium remain central to manufacturing capacity and cost. Yet the specialist chemicals that determine how those materials perform can be equally important to keeping production running.

Additives and masterbatches demonstrate how a relatively small component can create a disproportionately large supply chain vulnerability.

Their production may depend on specialised facilities, their formulations can be difficult to replicate, and replacing them may require extensive technical and regulatory assessment.

A disruption affecting a single chemical ingredient can therefore spread through masterbatch producers, packaging converters and the industries that depend on their products.

For manufacturers, brand owners and procurement teams, the challenge is to identify these dependencies before they become production bottlenecks.

The next major packaging shortage may not begin with a lack of the main raw material. It could start several stages upstream, with a specialist chemical ingredient that few outside the industry have heard of, but that manufacturers cannot readily replace.