Colorants come in many forms. They can be solids like pigments or liquids like dyes. They can be organic, inorganic (titanium dioxide and carbon black), or specialty pigments like metallics and fluorescents. They bring the color we see to life, particularly in packaging and printed materials.

It is a major market. MarketsandMarkets has the organic pigment at $4.4 billion in 2024, growing at a CAGR of 6.5%. Global Market Insights has the inorganic pigments market at $28.4 billion in 2023, with a CAGR of over 3.9%.

Ink companies have many specific needs when it chooses pigments. For example, Christine Russell, VP commercial – USA for FUJIFILM Ink Solutions Group, notes that ink manufacturers focus on a variety of characteristics when they select pigments for inkjet inks.

“The primary selection in inkjet pigments is a specific color hue, either to match existing ink ranges or to produce ink colors outside of conventional standards,” Russell says. “Pigments must meet specific performance requirements, such as durability and lightfastness, as well as compliance with regulations like European REACH and indirect food contact (IDFC). 

Russell adds that consistency is critical in inkjet applications to achieve precise particle size, stability, and repeatable milling profiles to ensure the same color every batch. 

“Impurity levels must be within tight tolerances,” says Russell. “Ink manufacturers must deliver products that meet market expectations, but currently rising pigment and raw material costs are adding pressure. New upcoming European PCB chemicals regulations, which require levels as low as 10 parts per million, may affect future pigment supply. Some pigment grades may not be able to meet these requirements, potentially leading to their withdrawal from some markets.”

In speaking with pigment industry leaders, the ink market is relatively stable, with the packaging and inkjet segments remaining strong.

Trust Chem EVP Falko Orlowski observes that the global ink pigment market over the past year has been defined by a pronounced structural shift. 

“The traditional printing ink segment has continued its steady decline, primarily due to the ongoing digitalization of media and reduced print volumes,” Orlowski says. “In contrast, the market has shown more resilience and growth in key application areas. Packaging inks and digital printing inks have demonstrated stable growth and expansion, driven by persistent demand for flexible and sustainable packaging, as well as the trend toward on-demand and customized printing. 

“This evolution highlights the market’s overall transition from broad, volume-driven growth to targeted, value-driven expansion, with sustainability and technological innovation serving as the core catalysts,” he notes.

Darren Bianchi, president and CEO of Brilliant Group, says that overall, the ink pigment market was relatively stable, particularly when viewed against a backdrop of geopolitical uncertainty, evolving trade policy, and continued supply-chain normalization following recent disruptions. 

“While certain segments experienced volatility tied to tariffs and raw material availability, demand in core packaging, label, and specialty printing applications remained resilient,’ adds Bianchi. “Customers increasingly rewarded suppliers who could offer consistency, technical support, and flexibility rather than simply lowest cost.”

Bianchi observes that ink manufacturers are becoming much more performance-driven in their pigment selection. 

“In fluorescent inks specifically, we’re seeing strong demand for higher color strength, improved letdown efficiency, mineral-oil-free chemistries, better compatibility with UV systems, and the ability to perform across a wider range of substrates,” he says. “Equally important, customers want pigments that are predictable on press, ease of dispersion, stable rheology, and appreciate the versatility of a base that can be used in both conventional and UV systems. These are areas where Brilliant has invested heavily, allowing customers to simplify formulations while improving performance.”

Orlowski says that manufacturers’ priorities have consolidated around three key criteria:

• Regulatory compliance and safety: Ensuring pigments meet stringent global standards for food contact, toy safety, and regulations like REACH and the US. TSCA is now non-negotiable.

• Performance in new systems: Pigments must perform reliably in newer, eco-friendly ink systems (like water-based or UV-curable inks) without sacrificing color strength, stability, or durability.

• Sustainability and value: Beyond initial cost, there is a strong focus on the pigment’s environmental footprint and its contribution to the final product’s recyclability or compostability.

Sustainability Concerns

Not surprisingly, sustainability is a top issue for ink manufacturers. Russell notes that sustainability is a key issue, as ink production creates impact in its carbon footprint, pollution and toxicity. 

“In practice, it is currently not possible to produce fully sustainable ink products that meet the technical performance requirements of many inkjet applications, and while bio-based materials are available, their high cost often makes them impractical and current regulations provide limited incentives for widespread adoption,” adds Russell. 

“Fujifilm puts significant focus on minimizing the impact of its operations in inkjet ink production,” Russell notes. “Upcoming European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation will increase focus on sustainability, requiring products to be classified based on recyclability and placing financial responsibility on producers for waste processing. Inks will need to be designed to high standards of recyclability, de-inking, chemical restrictions and compatibility with new materials.”

Bianchi says that sustainability has evolved from a marketing concept into a practical design constraint. 

“Ink manufacturers are under increasing pressure from brand owners and regulators to deliver products that meet stricter compliance, migration, and safety requirements without sacrificing performance,” he adds. “That has shifted the conversation from ‘green at any cost’ to smarter chemistry, materials that reduce regulatory risk, broaden end-use eligibility, and future-proof ink systems as standards continue to tighten.”

Orlowski emphasizes that sustainability is the central, transformative force in the industry. 

“It has evolved from a secondary consideration to a primary driver of R&D, procurement and product strategy,” notes Orlowski. “This shift is propelled by tightening environmental regulations worldwide, ambitious corporate sustainability goals from major brand owners, and increasing end-consumer awareness, making it a critical factor for market competitiveness.”

Raw Material Issues

The regulatory environment is becoming more stringent, and there are raw materials that are being phased out. Orlowski notes that the industry is actively phasing out or restricting certain materials, including legacy pigments that contain heavy metals (e.g., lead, hexavalent chromium) or specific aromatic amines that are subject to strict regulation, and non-compliant additives, as various substances of concern listed under evolving regulatory frameworks are being replaced.

“As an active member of industry associations like ETAD and CPMA, we participate in shaping standards, ensuring our strategies are forward-looking and aligned with global regulatory trends,” says Orlowski. “Our professional environment, health, and safety (EHS) team closely monitors global regulations, providing the expertise needed to navigate evolving legal and
compliance landscapes. We develop and supply advanced pigments designed to meet current and anticipated regulatory thresholds.”

Bianchi also notes that certain legacy raw materials, particularly those associated with migration concerns, regulatory scrutiny, or unfavorable toxicological profiles, are increasingly being restricted or avoided. He adds that this is especially true in applications tied to food packaging, toys, and consumer goods.

“Brilliant works closely with customers to proactively replace these materials, not just with compliant alternatives, but with solutions that maintain or improve color strength, dispersion quality, and press performance,” Bianchi says. “Our approach is collaborative and application-driven, helping customers transition smoothly rather than forcing last-minute reformulations.”

The Pigment Industry Going Forward

Orlowski says that the ink pigment industry’s future will be shaped by deep integration into the value chain. 

“Success will depend not only on manufacturing excellence but also on the ability to collaborate closely with ink formulators, packaging converters, and brand owners to solve complex challenges at the intersection of performance, compliance, and circularity,” adds Orlowski. “Agility in adapting to regional regulatory landscapes and leadership in green chemistry will be key differentiators for industry leaders in the coming years.”

“What we’re seeing across the industry is a shift toward partnerships rather than transactional sourcing,” says Bianchi. “Ink manufacturers want suppliers who understand press realities, regulatory trajectories, and the economic pressures they face.”

The Regulatory Side of the Pigment Industry

The regulatory side of the pigment industry remains a challenge, although with the change of the government in the US, there might be some changes going forward.

The Color Pigments Manufacturing Association (CPMA) represents pigments manufacturers in North America, Asia and Europe, pigments processors and converters, distributors/importers, and plastics masterbatch companies.

David Wawer, CPMA executive director, says that the question of the major regulatory issues facing the US pigments industry is a complex one.

For example, Wawer offered his insights on how the Trump Administration will handle the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

“Let’s look first at the broader pro-business philosophy and pro-manufacturing agenda of the Trump Administration,” Wawer notes. “Efforts are taking place across a wide spectrum of federal government agencies to reduce or eliminate costly regulatory requirements for US manufacturing companies. 

Wawer observes that this philosophical initiative will benefit existing US color industry manufacturing companies because every federal regulation enacted during the past 15 years has come with a new cost to manufacturers and importers. 

“With respect to the EPA, very broad regulatory reform actions will result in substantial economic benefit to US color industry manufacturers,” Wawer points out. “Examples include redefining waterways, modifying motor vehicle CAFÉ requirements, and eliminating the Obama-era policy defining greenhouse gases. EPA’s decision six months ago to reassign existing staff to the New Chemicals Program to accelerate approval of new chemicals (PMNS) directly benefits CPMA members with US manufacturing facilities. EPA has also proposed regulatory changes to the principle regulation governing the TSCA Risk Evaluation and Risk Management Rule for existing chemicals.” 

US EPA and CI Pigment Violet 29 Risk Evaluation-Risk Management

There is also the EPA’s evaluation of CI Pigment Violet 29, which is likely to change course.

“This story began in early 2017 after EPA announced the first ten substances for Risk Evaluation,” Wawer says. “After four years of engagement with the agency on what was supposed to be a no-unreasonable risk determination, EPA published in early 2021 its conclusion that PV 29 presented unreasonable risk to manufacturing workers, but no unreasonable risk to the public or the environment. 

“Turns out that the first part of this decision used flawed science and incorrect assumptions, ignoring valid industry information,” he adds. “As a result, CPMA invested significant resources to conduct scientific studies about PV 29 manufacturing processes in response to the flawed assumptions and lack of science employed by EPA staff to reach its 2021 determination. 

“After four years of sound science advocacy by CPMA and its downstream customer industry trade associations, EPA published a draft Risk Management Rule in December 2024 for CI Pigment Violet 29,” Wawer reports. “That draft Rule contains key components of the flawed science/no science rationale used by EPA for its Risk Evaluation determination in 2021. CPMA provided comments with industry recommendations to the Trump Administration in early 2025. Challenges with the PV 29 Risk Management Rule, as currently drafted, will continue into 2026.”

TSCA Risk Evaluation and
Risk Management for Future Pigments

That brings us to future evaluations of pigments.

“The assumption that particle size could result in lung overload for any chemical substance in particulate form is the flawed science argument used by EPA in the PV 29 Risk Evaluation Determination,” Wawer notes. “If the agency were to continue to apply this non-scientific approach for future risk evaluations, then CI Pigment Yellow 83, CI Pigment Yellow 65 and CI Pigment Red 52 would also be deemed to create unreasonable risk to manufacturing workers in pigments plants, pigment dispersions plants, plastic masterbatch plants, and paint and coatings plants. 

“This flawed science model would also be applied to risk evaluations of carbon black (black pigments), titanium dioxide (white pigments) and iron oxide pigments,” he observes. “The USEPA has proposed, however, the incorporation of sound science/new science and recognition of specific manufacturing processes (batch processing) that would mitigate many of the flaws inherent with the PV 29 Risk Evaluation process. These rule changes are expected to be adopted by EPA in 2026.” 

Mandates in Other Regions That Concern Pigments Manufacturers

In 2025, Health Canada and Environment & Climate Change Canada published the country’s proposed approach for risk management of PFAS substances. Wawer says that Canada chose to adopt the European Union’s broad definition of
PFAS substances.

CPMA has begun working with Canadian customer industry associations (coatings, plastics, printing inks, and automotive) to educate the Health and Environment Ministries about the color industry value chain and its related
consumer products. 

Wawer notes that Canada is now a high-cost region for manufacturing for the chemical industry in general, and for the color industry value chain specifically. This has led to the closure of one of the few remaining pigments manufacturing plants in
the country. 

The European Union is the other key region in the world continuing to impose new regulatory mandates on pigments manufacturers. One example is the proposed PFAS regulation being discussed by the European Commission. 

Wawer says the EU approach is to ban the manufacture, sale and use of PFAS substances in commercial products. This hazard-based approach eliminates the scientific and common-sense approach that utilizes risk and exposure principles. 

“The European Union Green Deal has created costly regulatory disincentives and economic barriers (1000% increase in energy costs) that will discourage manufacturing of pigments, pigment dispersions, and plastics masterbatch in Europe,” says Wawer. “The European Commission has also proposed adoption of new manufacturing regulations that would establish very low limits for manufacturing sector by-products (such as inadvertent PCBs) that would effectively shut down all pigments, printing inks, plastics, and paint & coatings manufacturing in the EU. This EU-specific proposal most likely results in disruption of commerce in Europe, accelerating consumer inflation, and leading to the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the EU. Could North America and Asia benefit from the closure of pigments manufacturing facilities in Europe?