A conversation with Roelof Westerbeek
Interview by Fredric Petit, Partner at Emerald
Roelof Westerbeek, Vice President of New Materials at Highsun Holding Group Co. Ltd., is a veteran of the global materials and packaging industry. With a career spanning leadership roles across Asia, Europe, and North America, Roelof brings a rare perspective on how technology, business strategy, and sustainability intersect in one of the world’s most complex industrial ecosystems.
In conversation with Fredric Petit, Partner at Emerald, Roelof discusses the hard-earned lessons of aligning innovation with commercial reality, why China has become the world’s most efficient scale-up ecosystem, and what it will really take to make the circular economy work for packaging.
The Importance of Knowing the Value Chain
Fredric: Roelof, you’ve worked across the global packaging and materials value chain for decades. Looking back, what experience most shaped your perspective on aligning technology, business, and sustainability?
Roelof: I’ve learned a lot of things the hard way. The most important lesson? You need a deep, fact-based understanding of every single step in the value chain — and, crucially, of the metrics that drive each player.
From the raw material supplier to the converter to the brand owner, everyone has different incentives. Too often we operate on assumptions, but those assumptions — if unvalidated — lead to poor decisions. You have to be almost paranoid about testing them constantly: What are the real performance metrics? What drives purchasing decisions? How is success measured?
It may sound obvious, but most investment mistakes come from skipping that validation. The best decisions I’ve seen come from people who obsessively verify their assumptions about what truly drives the industry.
Cost Still Rules in Packaging
Fredric: Let’s talk about those metrics. What are the dominant ones in packaging today?
Roelof: If we look at large packaging companies, the metric that drives them above all is cost: achieving the required functionality at the lowest possible cost.
When we talk about circularity, bio-based materials, or biodegradability, it’s easy to believe — especially when you read the headlines or scroll through LinkedIn — that we’re on the verge of transformation. But the reality is that cost determines adoption. Any sustainable or circular solution that isn’t cost-competitive will struggle to scale, no matter how great the technology.
That’s the paradox: everyone wants sustainable packaging, but very few are willing — or able — to pay more for it.
Europe Thinks, China Executes
Fredric: You’ve lived and worked in Asia-Pacific for over 20 years. Do you see major differences in how innovation and sustainability are approached between regions?
Roelof: Absolutely. I like to say Europe innovates in theory; China innovates in scale.
Europe is the birthplace of many circular packaging ideas — the conceptual leadership is clearly there. But China has become the global leader in scaling sustainable technologies, and there are a few reasons for that.
First, motivation. In Europe, sustainability is often driven by values — “saving the planet,” as Paul Polman at Unilever used to say. In China, the driver is profit: How can we make money from this? That creates a pragmatic and fast-moving environment.
Second, regulation. China’s rules are clear, direct, and implemented quickly. For example, in e-commerce packaging, China mandated that secondary packaging must be biodegradable or bio-based. Within just a few years, that regulation created hundreds of thousands of tons of PLA demand.
Compare that to Europe, where the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) took years to finalize and still leaves ambiguity — especially around bio-based materials. China’s ability to execute decisively gives it a huge edge.
Third, scale and agility. Chinese companies make decisions fast. Factories are massive. Supply chains are local and flexible. European businesses have the vision — but Chinese businesses have the execution power.
The Startup Ecosystem in China
Fredric: Does that agility also extend to startups? Do you see China as fertile ground for new ventures?
Roelof: Very much so. Chinese startups face the same structural challenges as everywhere else — especially when their technology is capital-intensive. That’s universal.
But China has other strengths: a highly educated workforce, a strong entrepreneurial spirit, and a willingness to fail fast and try again. I’ve seen early-stage founders raise their first rounds not from venture capital, but from friends and family networks — and that seed capital often comes quickly.
So yes, I’d say China’s environment for startups is at least as dynamic as Europe’s or the U.S.’s, particularly when it comes to testing ideas at speed and scale.
Innovation as Survival
Fredric: Many of the large packaging companies and FMCGs are facing headwinds — geopolitical tensions, cost pressures, and competition from Asia. What advice would you give their innovation teams?
Roelof: That’s the million-dollar question! First, I’d tell them to embed innovation deeply into their strategy. Historically, the packaging industry hasn’t been truly innovative — it’s been cost-driven. But that has to change.
Second, be brutally realistic about scalability and economics. Most packaging materials — PET, PE, PP — cost around $1,000 per ton or less. If a new circular material costs twice that, your potential market shrinks dramatically.
And let’s be clear — there are no technical barriers left. We can recycle, sort, print, and convert in ways we couldn’t 20 years ago. The barriers are economic. Unless the numbers work, the innovation won’t scale.
Regulation and Reality
Fredric: Regulation is often seen as a catalyst. Do you believe legislation can fix the economics?
Roelof: It has to. Without regulation, the business case for circularity just doesn’t hold. Virgin plastics are still too cheap.
We’ve seen this play out across Europe — several recycling companies have gone bankrupt in just the last year. In the Netherlands alone, I think six or eight recyclers shut down. They simply couldn’t compete with virgin material pricing.
At the same time, FMCGs are under pressure from inflation and consumer sensitivity. They can’t afford to raise prices further, so they’re reluctant to pay a premium for recycled content. As a result, they limit circular materials to their premium product lines — deodorants, cosmetics — not their mass-market goods.
It’s a classic market failure: we need more circular capacity, but the economics make it unprofitable to build it. That’s where smart regulation — taxes on virgin plastics, incentives for recycled materials — must come in.
Paper vs. Plastic, and the Scalability Challenge
Fredric: How do you see the “paper versus plastic” debate evolving?
Roelof: It depends entirely on the category. I’m not a paper expert, but I think paper is slightly overhyped. Many so-called “plastic-free” paper solutions still require plastic coatings — and those coatings often determine recyclability.
There are exciting startups working on alternatives, such as bio-based or ultra-thin coatings, but the economics are still tough.
And meanwhile, the FMCGs know what’s coming: PPWR mandates will require them to use 30% to 50% circular materials within a few years. The problem is that current industry capacity is nowhere near sufficient — not short by 20%, but by a factor of ten.
Unless virgin plastics become more expensive, or recyclates cheaper, the math doesn’t work.
Profit, Impact, and Realism
Fredric: Can the industry still make a meaningful impact while staying profitable?
Roelof: For startups, yes. There are plenty of opportunities to build profitable niche businesses — companies that make $10 or $50 million in revenue by solving specific problems. But let’s be honest: those won’t yet move the needle on the 400 million tons of plastics produced globally each year.
So, will these innovations transform the planet tomorrow? Probably not. But they will create meaningful progress — and in some sectors, like cosmetics, the shift is already visible. Those brands can afford it, their customers demand it, and they lead by example.
I’m not pessimistic — just realistic. Our job, as investors and innovators, is to know what’s truly scalable, to validate every assumption, and to invest where sustainability and economics genuinely align.
Fredric: That’s a powerful message — pragmatic but hopeful. Thank you, Roelof, for sharing your insights.
Roelof: My pleasure, Fredric. It’s good to speak freely about these challenges — they’re complex, but that’s what makes this industry so fascinating. And as long as we keep challenging our assumptions, we’ll keep moving forward.
More on Packaging & Materials at Emerald:
Unlocking the Future of Smart Packaging: Insights from Emerald’s Latest Sprint
Words of Wisdom: Reinvention, Courage, and the Never-Norm World