Industry guidance and laboratory assessment
CEPI and 4evergreen Recyclability Guidelines for Molded Fiber Packaging
Two names come up in almost every European fibre packaging discussion, and they are regularly confused. CEPI provides the harmonised laboratory method that measures how a paper-based product behaves in a recycling mill. 4evergreen provides the design guidance and the protocol that turn those measurements into a usable result. THECA works on the other side of both: molded fiber made from 100% post-consumer recycled fibre, engineered so the construction you approve does not create problems the laboratory will later find.
What you are starting from with THECA.
100% post-consumer recycled fiber
Every THECA product is moulded from post-consumer recycled cellulosic fibre, with no virgin-fibre route required.
PPWR compliant
Our products are PPWR compliant. Your finished construction, added components, intended use and target market still shape the project-level picture.
Mono-material where the application allows
A fibre-only component adds no non-fibre content for a laboratory to separate or a recycler to reject.
Design, tooling and process in-house
Type 1, 2 and 3 production with machine and mold development under one roof, so a design change does not become a supply-chain project.
Two different roles
Two organisations, two outputs, one practical objective.
Industry association
CEPI
The Confederation of European Paper Industries represents the European pulp and paper industry. Its contribution here is a measuring instrument: the harmonised recyclability laboratory test method, version 3 published in February 2025.
The method reproduces the main stages of a conventional recycling mill — pulping, screening and sheet formation — under laboratory conditions, so the same sample is assessed the same way in any participating laboratory across Europe. It generates parameters. It does not, on its own, declare a verdict.
Cross-industry alliance
4evergreen
4evergreen is a cross-industry alliance hosted by CEPI, bringing together more than 110 organisations from across the paper-based packaging value chain — producers, converters, brand owners, retailers, recyclers and waste managers — with a target of a 90% recycling rate for paper-based packaging in Europe by the end of 2030.
Its contribution is interpretation and design: the Recyclability Evaluation Protocol and scorecard, the Circularity by Design Guideline and the Guidance on the Improved Collection and Sorting. Its definition of paper-based packaging explicitly includes moulded fibre products, so this material sits squarely in scope.
Packaging teams meet both because the two halves only work together. The CEPI method produces the numbers for a conventional recycling mill; the 4evergreen protocol converts them into a score, and adds the test methods for mills with flotation-deinking and specialised processes. Treating the outputs as interchangeable is where projects go wrong: a design recommendation is not a test result, a test result is not a legal grade, and none of them is a certificate.
Side by side
What each one gives you, and what it does not.
| Aspect | CEPI recyclability laboratory test method | 4evergreen technical toolbox |
|---|---|---|
| Organisation | Confederation of European Paper Industries, an industry association | Cross-industry alliance hosted by CEPI, spanning the whole value chain |
| Primary role | Standardising how a sample is tested | Standardising how results are evaluated and how packaging is designed |
| Type of output | A laboratory procedure and the parameters it generates | An evaluation protocol with a scorecard, a design guideline and collection and sorting guidance |
| Typical use | Commissioned on a physical sample of a finished construction | Consulted during design, then used to interpret and score the laboratory parameters |
| What it can indicate | How that sample disintegrates, screens and forms a sheet under defined conditions | Whether the tested construction is technically recyclable in the assessed mill process, and which design choices cause the problem |
| What it does not prove | Legal compliance, food-contact suitability or performance of a different construction | Legal compliance, and not a substitute for the conformity documentation the regulation requires |
Scroll the table sideways on smaller screens to see both columns.
From guidance to evidence
A sequence that works, and not every project needs all of it.
-
01
Define the complete construction
Not the tray alone: the fibre body plus every coating, film, ink, adhesive, label and additional component that will travel with it.
-
02
Review the design guidance
The 4evergreen Circularity by Design Guideline, currently version 4 published in February 2026, gives component-level recommendations across three recycling pathways.
-
03
Identify the disruptive elements
Most fibre packs have one or two features that carry the risk. Finding them on paper costs nothing; finding them after tooling costs a project.
-
04
Select the relevant method
The protocol covers three mill processes: conventional, flotation-deinking and specialised. The right one depends on where the pack realistically ends up.
-
05
Test the finished construction
Worth commissioning where a coating, film, lamination or heavy ink coverage is genuinely required. A plain fibre component rarely justifies the cost on its own.
-
06
Interpret it in context
Read the result against your target markets, their collection systems and the separate legal requirements that apply to the pack as placed on the market.
What the assessment actually looks at
The parameters behind the score, in plain terms.
- Disintegration
- How readily the construction breaks down into individual fibres in water under defined conditions.
- Yield and rejects
- How much usable fibre is recovered after screening, and how much leaves as coarse and fine reject.
- Filtrate analysis
- The dissolved and colloidal load carried into mill water, assessed through parameters such as chemical oxygen demand.
- Macrostickies
- Tacky particles, typically from adhesives and certain coatings, that can pass screening and cause problems downstream.
- Sheet formation and adhesion
- Handsheets made from the recovered fibre are assessed, including whether the material shows sticking behaviour.
- Recovered material quality
- Visual impurities and undispersed particles in the recovered sheet, which determine what the fibre can be used for next.
The protocol combines these into a scorecard, and certain findings act as knockout criteria regardless of how the rest of the numbers look. Two things follow. First, every figure belongs to the specific sample and the specific mill process assessed — it is not a property of a material family. Second, a good score is technical evidence about recycling behaviour, not a legal conclusion.
Components that change the result
The base fibre and the finished pack are two different test subjects.
A moulded fibre body and the same body with a barrier, a window film and a wraparound label are related items, but an assessment of one says very little about the other. This is the single most common misunderstanding in fibre packaging projects.
- Barrier coatings. Added for moisture, grease or oxygen resistance; can resist repulping and end up in the reject fraction.
- Films and laminations. Added for sealing or product visibility; frequently non-separable and a common cause of yield loss.
- Inks and printing. Heavy coverage influences recovered fibre quality and visible impurities in the sheet.
- Adhesives and labels. A leading contributor to macrostickies; carrier material and adhesive chemistry both matter.
- Closures, lids and inserts. Mixed-material units are harder to sort and harder to evidence than a mono-material build.
This is where in-house engineering earns its keep. Because mold design, process selection and packaging design sit in the same building, THECA can usually answer a barrier requirement with geometry, a fibre lid or a formed retention feature before adding a non-fibre layer. Where a barrier genuinely is required, it becomes a documented specification decision rather than a default — and the pack is developed knowing which parameter it will be judged on.
Design checklist
Settle these before tooling is approved.
- Intended application and product
- Full material composition of the finished pack
- Coating or barrier requirement, and the reason for it
- Printing coverage, ink system and adhesive choices
- Product-protection requirements and known failure modes
- Likely collection and recycling route in each market
- Target markets and their sorting infrastructure
- Whether laboratory assessment is needed, and on which construction
- Supporting documentation your customers or auditors expect
- Any design change still open before tooling approval
THECA's engineering approach
Recyclability handled as a design input, not a closing question.
-
01
Technical brief review
Product, market, packing sequence and the non-fibre elements you need to keep are established in one pass.
-
02
Material and component review
Every added element is challenged once: is it required by the application, or inherited from the incumbent pack?
-
03
Production-route selection
Type 1, 2 or 3 is chosen from surface, tolerance and load requirements. See how THECA produces molded fiber.
-
04
Structural and tooling design
Ribs, contact zones and nesting are developed so protection comes from geometry. Browse the molded fiber product range.
-
05
Sampling
For technically suitable projects, a complete brief reaches a first sample in about four weeks, in the construction that will actually be assessed.
-
06
Application validation
Fit, handling and pack-out are trialled with the real product, with ISTA drop testing where a project requires it. Requirements differ by sector — see molded fiber by industry.
-
07
Series production and documents
Typical lead time is 2–4 weeks after final approvals and a confirmed order, with ISO 9001, FSC Recycled and PFAS analysis available for review alongside our certificates.
Related compliance topics
Frequently asked
Three questions that come up on every fibre project.
Are CEPI testing and 4evergreen guidance the same thing?
No. They are different organisations producing different outputs. CEPI is an industry association and its test method defines how a sample is measured in the laboratory for a conventional recycling mill. 4evergreen is a cross-industry alliance hosted by CEPI; its Recyclability Evaluation Protocol sets out how those parameters are evaluated and scored, and covers flotation-deinking and specialised mill processes as well. In practice you use them together, but they are not substitutes for one another.
Does following this guidance prove PPWR compliance?
No. Both are voluntary industry tools, not legislation. Legal recyclability requirements sit in Regulation (EU) 2025/40, and the harmonised design-for-recycling criteria and grading methodology come through delegated acts due by 1 January 2028. Working to the current guidance is the sensible way to prepare and is strong technical evidence, but a scorecard result is not a legal grade and does not replace the conformity documentation the regulation requires.
When should a finished construction actually be tested?
When the construction carries something the fibre does not: a barrier or coating, a film or lamination, heavy ink coverage, a significant adhesive or label, or a non-fibre closure. Test the version you intend to produce, not a simplified prototype, and do it before tooling is signed off so the result can still change the design. A plain fibre component with no added layers rarely justifies the cost unless a customer or market specifically asks for the evidence.
Official sources
- CEPI — Recyclability Laboratory Test Method, version 3
- 4evergreen — Recyclability Evaluation Protocol, scorecard and test methods
- 4evergreen — Circularity by Design Guideline
- 4evergreen — Guidance on the Improved Collection and Sorting
- 4evergreen — About the alliance and its workstreams
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste
- EUR-Lex — Commission Notice, guidance document for Regulation (EU) 2025/40
Last reviewed: 15 September 2026
This page provides general technical information and does not constitute legal advice. Requirements should be assessed for the specific product, market and intended use.
Next step
Assess the recyclability of your molded fiber packaging project.
Send the product and application, the complete packaging construction including every non-fibre element, any coating or barrier requirement, the target market, the expected annual quantity and the testing or documentation your customers ask for. Our engineers will tell you which elements carry the risk, what can be solved with geometry instead, and whether a laboratory assessment is worth commissioning for your construction.