Interview Markus Lüling

Interview with K-Profi Editor-in-Chief Markus Lüling

In this interview, we speak to Markus Lüling, founder and editor-in-chief of the trade journal “K-PROFI”, about the image of plastics, innovation in processes, manufacturing and products, the circular economy, regulatory hurdles and the future of Germany as an industrial location.

For more than thirty years, Lüling, a specialist journalist and graduate engineer, has been covering plastics-related topics. Before founding K-PROFI, he worked for many years as an editor, in management roles and on a freelance basis for other specialist publications in the plastics industry, including at Hanser-Verlag for the trade magazine Kunststoffe and at Giesel Verlag for the K-Zeitung. Since September 2012 – which is almost 14 years now and more than 100 issues – Lüling has been covering technological and economic developments in the plastics and rubber processing industry in K-PROFI and its English-language edition, K-PROFI international. K-PROFI is regarded as a “business magazine” that consistently focuses on the economic success of processors and provides impetus for the sector by reporting on success strategies, best-practice examples and practical operational solutions. Furthermore, Lüling has been editor-in-chief of the trade fair newspaper K-AKTUELL for many years; this publication appears daily during the K trade fair, which takes place every three years in Düsseldorf.

Analyses and studies providing up-to-date facts on the circular economy are crucial for de-ideologising the debate and valuable for ensuring discussions remain objective. For me personally, hardly any study is as helpful as the compilation of production and consumption data and the resulting study ‘plastics flow in Germany’, which has accompanied me throughout almost my entire professional career.

In March 2026, Lüling was awarded the prestigious Georg-Menges-Preis for outstanding specialist journalism and the active transfer of knowledge between research and industrial practice in the plastics industry. The prize, awarded by the Institute for Plastics Processing in Industry and Trade at RWTH Aachen University (IKV), the VDMA Plastics and Rubber Machinery Association and Plastics Europe Germany, honours individuals who promote the transfer of research findings to industry and is traditionally awarded to outstanding figures from the worlds of science and business.

Mr Lüling, first of all, congratulations on being awarded the Georg-Menges Prize! You are the first journalist among the prize winners: what personal significance does this recognition of your work as a bridge-builder between research and practice hold for you?

Thank you very much. The prize came as a complete surprise to me. As convincing as Professor Hopmann’s reasoning for awarding it to a trade journalist was, I would never have thought I was in the running to receive it. When it comes to connecting research, universities, development partners and industry representatives, trade media—regardless of format—are not the only, but still a very valid channel for constructive exchange. Personally, I have experienced this role to be a fulfilling task for more than three decades. And if the work produced by me and my team is of benefit, I am delighted.

As editor-in-chief of K-PROFI, you translate technology into understandable language every day. When we talk about the challenging image of plastics: where do you think the industry’s communication could be improved, and how can the trade press help to make discussions about plastics in relation to climate protection and resource efficiency more objective in the public dialogue? How important do you consider analyses and studies to be in establishing a fact-based discussion, such as the BKV’s studies on the circular economy?

The trade media essentially operate within the industry. The stated target audience is plastics and rubber processors; some publications also address their suppliers or customers. Many observers and associations hope that the trade media could act as information channels extending beyond the industry and significantly influence public opinion. I do not share this assumption: industry media are not mass media! Trade media have never played a role in public dialogue with citizens or in politics. However, they can help keep industry players well-informed when they need to position themselves ‘externally’. That said, no single trade publication deals simultaneously with materials and application technology, machinery, tooling and processing technology, issues of corporate strategy or operational organisation, the economic climate, commodity flows, regulation and politics. That would exceed the capacity of any editorial team. I see the major industry associations as the voice of the entire industry when it comes to the economic framework conditions. Specialist and sector-specific topics such as product regulations, requirements for materials, the circular economy or the associated documentation obligations are best handled by the plastics industry associations, backed by experts from the sector.

Analyses and studies providing up-to-date facts on the circular economy are crucial for de-ideologising the debate and valuable for ensuring discussions remain objective. For me personally, hardly any study is as helpful as the compilation of production and consumption data and the resulting study ‘plastics flow in Germany’, which has accompanied me throughout almost my entire professional career. I am already looking forward to the 2025 figures and the visualisation in October.

Key issues for the industry at present are material and quota requirements, both from the market and through legal regulations. For example, the EU Packaging Regulation (PPWR) and the imminent EU End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR) set ambitious quotas for the use of recycled materials. Many processors complain about insufficient quality and supply bottlenecks. Where do you see the biggest gap currently between political ambition, technical possibilities and market requirements? What solutions do you envisage?

Many bright minds have been racking their brains for a very long time over how to resolve the ‘recyclate dilemma’. The ELVR and its implementation will significantly increase the demand for recycled materials from post-consumer waste. Both consumer-oriented and technical target markets for plastic products will, in turn, boost demand for recycled materials. Overall, I cannot see where the necessary quantities of processed materials – particularly technical plastics – are supposed to come from post-consumer waste streams. At present, there is also insufficient capacity for vehicle dismantling. Added to this is the fact that many vehicles reach the end of their useful life abroad. In the long term, the industry will need to make the extraction and processing of secondary plastics competitive and ensure their use is cost-effective. In my view, electricity in Germany is too expensive to make recycling economically viable under normal market conditions, even when pushing the limits of what is physically possible. The numerous recycler insolvencies in recent months are proof of this. Crisis-driven increases in virgin material prices are currently masking this dilemma.

In any case, broader participation by industry companies in consultations during legislative processes is desirable, as is a higher degree of organisation within those associations that represent their interests in Berlin and, above all, in Brussels, and advocate for appropriate guidelines and realistic regulations. Clear legal requirements would also be desirable, that are no longer put on the back burner and, where necessary, are financially supported to resolve the dilemma.

In the debate on increasing efficiency and the shortage of skilled workers, the potential of artificial intelligence and full automation is often cited as a decisive lever. How do you assess the current state of these technologies: Is AI-supported production already applicable for traditional SMEs, or is it still primarily the preserve of large corporations for the time being?

In North America, manufacturers of plastics machinery have long since made the operation of their systems accessible to unskilled and non-native-speaking staff, for example through intuitively designed control interfaces (MMI). In Europe, alongside ease of use, VR- and/or AI-supported machine set-up and commissioning are being explored as a measure to tackle the skills shortage. This is only logical.

AI-supported production is not just a topic for large corporations. The latter presumably have more financial resources and personnel capacity to trial new tools. But when I look at the practical examples presented at specialist conferences and showcased at (in-house) trade fairs, the users of AI tools are just as frequently small and medium-sized plastics processors.

High energy costs, high wage levels and an increasing regulatory burden are placing a massive strain on the competitiveness of the German plastics industry. What strategic approaches do you observe among companies seeking to manage the transition to a circular economy in the face of these adverse conditions?

In my observation, many plastics processors have existential concerns about the future viability of their sites in Germany. Demand is weak, whilst energy, site and labour costs, as well as bureaucracy, are weighing on competitiveness. Investments in the plants must pay for themselves quickly and lead to success even when capacity utilisation prospects are shaky.

Production with as little waste and scrap as possible, whilst using minimal resources in other respects, has always been a key lever for efficiency in plastics processing. Successful companies have been pursuing this strategy for decades without making a big fuss about it. Sensible division of labour, closed material cycles, a high level of self-sufficiency in energy – whatever the individual measures may be: I am not aware of a one-size-fits-all solution. I also consider testing feasibility in pilot projects to be a promising approach.

Mr Lüling, looking ahead: what particular strengths of Germany as a business location make you confident today about the future of a sustainable plastics industry? What gives you the most encouragement for the coming years?

A circular economy involving plastics will require enormous quantities of very low-cost energy. On the one hand, I cannot see how the massive capacities can be created and very low prices achieved in the long term. On the other hand, all key industry indicators have been sliding deeper and deeper into the red for years; many companies can barely invest any more; chemical recycling projects are being put on hold, many even halted; and a wave of insolvencies is sweeping through plastics processing, particularly among recycling plants. We can no longer ignore the fact that the European basic chemicals industry is eroding, that many machinery manufacturers are selling less and less in Europe, that raw polymers and compounds are increasingly coming from Asia, and that the number of students in technical degree programmes at universities is shrinking. In this respect, my optimism is very limited that we in Germany can quickly establish a plastics industry that deserves the label ‘sustainable’. All worries and concerns swept aside: I see the intensive networking of plastics production, plastics machinery manufacturing, sorting and recycling technology, plastics processors, universities and institutes, service providers and experts as a particular strength of Germany as a business location when it comes to solving key tasks on the path to a circular economy.

Mr. Lüling, thank you very much for the interview!