In this episode, we sit down with Conrick Gallagher, Vice President of Partnerships at Okeanos. We dig into the real challenges companies run into when they bring sustainable materials into the mix. From costs and unreliable supply to old machinery and confusing regulations, it’s not as simple as it sounds. We also talk about why chasing the “perfect” solution is slowing everyone down, and what it takes to make real progress.
Conrick Gallagher, a University of Miami graduate, who spent his childhood moving across countries, developed a deep global awareness that fuels his passion for sustainability. After earning his undergraduate degree in sports administration, he realized his true calling lay in creating solutions that help protect the planet. He now serves as Vice President of Partnerships at Okeanos, where he leads global relationship-building efforts to advance technologies that reduce plastic pollution in our oceans.
Sean Riley: In this episode, we sit down with Conrick Gallagher, Vice President of Partnerships at Okeanos. We dig into the real challenges companies run into when they bring sustainable materials into the mix. From costs and unreliable supply to old machinery and confusing regulations, it’s not as simple as it sounds. We also talk about why chasing the “perfect” solution is slowing everyone down, and what it takes to make real progress. So with all the fancy introductions out of the way, welcome to the podcast, Conrick.
Conrick Gallagher: Thank you for having me, Sean.
Sean Riley: Oh, the pleasure is all ours. You come from a company with a fascinating background, and you have a fascinating perspective on sustainability and sustainable packaging. I thought we’d talk about some of the practical challenges companies face when trying to integrate more sustainable materials into existing supply chains. What have you come across?
Conrick Gallagher: Yeah, I think cost is a really big issue, and scalability might be an even bigger one. Even with something as mainstream as recycled resins, you run into constant issues with availability, food-grade approval, cost volatility, and inconsistent quality. For example, bioplastics are often marketed as a miracle solution—something compostable and biodegradable in real-world conditions—but the capacity just isn’t there to make a meaningful dent. You're talking about materials that require bespoke infrastructure, significant investment, and still only account for a tiny fraction of global plastic production, which is over a million tons per day—some quote over 400 million tons per year globally. And on top of that, sustainable materials often don't perform the same way on existing machinery. Suppliers can be small or unreliable, and regulations vary considerably across countries. Something considered sustainable in one country might be banned in another. And consumers often don’t understand key terms like compostable, biodegradable, or recyclable, so you're also dealing with a significant education gap.
Sean Riley: I’ve talked with other people about this, and one thing many don’t take into consideration is that the machinery they have could be decades old. It may not be designed to run these newer sustainable materials.
Conrick Gallagher: Right. The majority of materials I see run on bespoke equipment—equipment tailored to produce one very specific product, usually in one location, in one part of a country. So it’s really hard to make a dent in the overall plastic problem with that level of specialization.
Sean Riley: What would you say are the most common roadblocks companies face when trying to scale into these new packaging materials?
Conrick Gallagher: A big one is trying to do too many things at once. Companies often feel pressured to be everything at the same time while still meeting performance requirements, cost targets, and certification demands. That creates distractions and delays. There’s a ton of demand for sustainability, but very little willingness to pay for it. If your material is even a few cents more expensive than the one it's replacing, you’re already at a disadvantage. People want sustainability—but they want it at cost neutrality.
Another roadblock is trials. Every customer wants to test your product before committing, and those trials take time, resources, and cross-departmental alignment. You have to be focused and patient, but also honest about your trade-offs. At Okeanos, for example, our backend innovation team focuses on product development long before anything hits the sales pipeline. We have to deliver a product that’s been tested, is commercially viable, and is ready to run on existing machinery with minimal disruption.
Sean Riley: It feels like when sustainability first became a topic years ago, everyone took care of the low-hanging fruit. But recently, with EPR regulations growing across Europe and worldwide, it feels like everyone is trying to do everything at once.
Conrick Gallagher: Yeah, I think a lot of companies are afraid to be the first mover. They don’t want to be the first test case that proves something doesn’t scale. Even if they claim to prioritize sustainability, it’s really difficult to take that first leap.
Sean Riley: How does someone balance innovation with the realities of large-scale manufacturing and global or regional distribution? It seems daunting. How do you jump into it?
Conrick Gallagher: My answer might sound simple, but you have to be realistic. At our company, we don’t try to reinvent the supply chain. We design materials to work with existing manufacturing equipment—extrusion lines, injection molding, blow-molding machines—because requiring new hardware or infrastructure makes adoption ten times harder and more expensive. Innovation isn’t just about launching something new; it’s ensuring what you launch can actually run at scale.
If a converter or manufacturer can’t run the material easily and consistently, it won’t move forward no matter how sustainable it is. That’s why we engage early with technician teams and prioritize real-world testing. And we don’t push materials to market before they’re ready. Our innovation team spends a lot of time refining products on the backend. It’s not a prototype—it’s a solution. A solution that’s been tested, proven, and is ready to run on day one. That gives customers confidence and supports adoption that’s both fast and realistic.
Sean Riley: These new packaging materials are going into infrastructure that, in some countries, is built far better for traditional recycling than for these newer sustainable materials.
Conrick Gallagher: Absolutely. It's a huge challenge. You’re playing in a system that wasn’t designed for innovation. Our approach is to understand the existing rules—because they matter—and design within those guardrails. But we also advocate for change where those rules don’t make sense.
For example, some countries mandate recycling in areas that don’t even have recycling infrastructure. Why require something to be recycled when alternatives exist that reduce carbon and decrease plastic waste? Maybe those alternatives don’t fit outdated definitions of “recyclable,” but they still move the needle.
As a materials provider, we’re not trying to control the entire supply chain. It’s about partnerships and pushing for recognition of real-world impact rather than theoretical metrics. And because requirements aren’t consistent across markets, it becomes even more complicated. If you operate in one small market, great—it’s easier. But if you're trying to be a globally acceptable solution, meeting every region’s expectations becomes far more difficult.
Sean Riley: Okay, so if you could change one thing about how the packaging industry approaches sustainability, what would it be?
Conrick Gallagher: I’d change the industry’s obsession with perfection. Right now, companies chase the “perfect” solution—100% recyclable, bio-based, zero emissions—and that creates paralysis. Meanwhile, there are technologies today that reduce plastic use, lower emissions, and fit into existing systems, but they don’t get adopted because they’re not perfect.
Another issue is focusing on a single metric, like recyclability. Environmental impact and full life-cycle analysis are far more important than what bin a piece of packaging goes into. In some cases, a material that isn’t recyclable today might still be the more sustainable choice. Recyclability in Europe might mean something entirely different in Latin America or the U.S., and that fragmentation holds everyone back.
If we rewarded meaningful, measurable progress instead of waiting for perfection, we’d be much further along.
Sean Riley: That’s a great way of looking at it. Even country to country, continent to continent—and now state to state—you could sell something in Oregon that you can’t sell in Missouri. I don’t know how you reward progress versus a complete solution. It’s an interesting paradigm.
Conrick Gallagher: Yeah. I think you reward policy frameworks that consider full life-cycle analysis—looking at the entire life of a product, not just binary outcomes like recyclability. Recyclability is important and should happen where possible, but the total life-cycle impact of a product, process, or service is what really matters.
Sean Riley: Yeah, awesome. This was all food for thought for me. I remember machinery people saying, “This isn’t going to affect us yet.” Now it is affecting them. It’s interesting to hear all of this. I want to thank you again for taking time out of your day to come on the podcast.
Conrick Gallagher: Yeah, thanks for having me, Sean.
