Shrink sleeves · stretch labels · flexible packaging films · laminates — engineered for brand owners, converters and co-packers who cannot afford to compromise on consistency.
Sleeve label films · flexible packaging rollstock · laminates · compostable structures. Trial roll to full container.
| Material | Thickness mic / mil | Width mm / in | Length/roll m | Shrink / Stretch | Core mm / in | Primary Application | Food Safe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PETG | 30–60 / 1.2–2.4 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Shrink sleeve labels | Yes | |
| OPS | 35–55 / 1.4–2.2 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Shrink sleeve, wrap-around | Yes | |
| PET | 30–60 / 1.2–2.4 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Shrink sleeve label, packaging, lamination | Yes | |
| LDPE | 30–50 / 1.2–2.0 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Stretch sleeve labels | Yes | |
| PLA | 30–60 / 1.2–2.4 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Bio shrink sleeve, compostable packaging | Yes | |
| PO | 40–50 / 1.6–2.0 | 250–1300 / 10–51″ | 6–10,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | Polyolefin shrink sleeve, stretch labels | Yes | |
| PP | 15–80 / 0.6–3.2 | 300–1500 / 12–59″ | 3–8,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | BOPP flow wrap · CPP sealant · PPWR laminates | Yes | |
| PA | 70–200 / 2.8–7.9 | 200–1200 / 8–47″ | 1–5,000 | 76 / 152 (3″ / 6″) | PA/PE vacuum pouches · meat · cook-in · thermoforming | Yes |
* Custom thickness, width and core available on request. PP = BOPP/CPP grades. PA = PA/PE coextrusion. Full flexible packaging range including EVOH, MDO-PE, PBAT/PLA — see Materials hub.
Proforma Invoice within 24 hours · No obligation · Trial rolls available
polimexgroup.com/quote
Reference: RFQ-—
A confirmation with your enquiry summary has been sent to your email.
We'll send your Pro-Forma Invoice within 24 hours.
We don't just supply film. We engineer material solutions that perform consistently at production speed, across every order, every market.
Technical guides, regulatory analysis and procurement intelligence for label converters, brand owners and co-packers.
2026-05-15 · 7 min read · Polimex Tech
"Compostable is greener than plastic" and "recyclable is greener than compostable" are both claims we hear from brand owners, and both are incomplete on their own — the honest answer depends heavily on feedstock, end-of-life infrastructure actually available to the end consumer, and what happens to the packaging if the intended end-of-life route isn't used (which, in practice, happens often).
PLA is produced from fermented plant starch (commonly corn or sugarcane) — a renewable feedstock with lower fossil-carbon input at the resin stage compared to petroleum-based polymers. PBAT is petrochemically derived, even though it's biodegradable, which is a distinction worth being direct about: PBAT/PLA blends are not 100% bio-based just because they're compostable. MDO-PE and LLDPE are conventional fossil-fuel-derived polyethylene, with a mature, efficient, high-volume production infrastructure that generally has a lower per-kg production carbon footprint than the less-scaled PBAT/PLA production base — though this gap narrows as bio-based polymer production scales.
| Scenario | PBAT/PLA Outcome | MDO-PE/LLDPE Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Used as intended (industrial composting access) | Converts to CO₂, water and biomass within the certified timeframe — no landfill methane, no persistent plastic waste | Recycled into new PE feedstock — avoids virgin resin production for the next use cycle |
| No infrastructure access — goes to general waste/landfill | Does not compost under landfill conditions (see our landfill/compost article) — degrades slowly, may generate landfill methane over an extended timeframe like other organic-adjacent waste | Landfilled PE is inert and does not readily biodegrade or generate methane, but represents a lost recycling-loop opportunity and persists physically for a very long period |
| Incinerated (waste-to-energy) | Combusts, recovering some energy value; biogenic carbon content is generally treated more favourably in carbon accounting than fossil carbon | Combusts, recovering energy value; fossil-carbon-derived CO₂ released |
This is the point most carbon-footprint comparisons skip: neither material's best-case outcome is guaranteed by the material itself. PBAT/PLA's compost outcome requires industrial composting access the end consumer may not have. MDO-PE/LLDPE's recycling outcome requires the consumer to correctly sort it into the PE film store drop-off stream — a lower-availability channel than kerbside recycling in most markets. A brand's actual carbon outcome is as much a function of end-of-life infrastructure access in their specific market as it is a function of the material chosen.
Choose PBAT/PLA when your customer base has genuine, verified access to industrial composting infrastructure, or when the brand's positioning specifically depends on a compostable end-of-life story and you're prepared to communicate the infrastructure requirement honestly on-pack. Choose MDO-PE/LLDPE when PE film store recycling access is stronger in your target market than composting access, or when the product needs mechanical/barrier properties PBAT/PLA doesn't currently match at the required gauge (see our comparison in the vacuum-seal article for one such case). Neither answer is universally "greener" — the honest answer is market- and infrastructure-dependent, and we'd rather have that conversation with you directly than sell you a material based on an assumption about your customers' waste infrastructure that may not hold.
Compostable PBAT/PLA and recyclable MDO-PE/LLDPE both depend on end-of-life infrastructure actually being available to the end consumer to deliver their best-case carbon outcome — neither is universally lower-carbon without that context. Match the material to your market's actual waste infrastructure, not a generic sustainability assumption. Polimex supplies both material families. Contact: ops@polimexgroup.com