Glass has dominated wine packaging for nearly four centuries and remains the preferred choice among consumers. Still, growing concerns about sustainability may create opportunities for alternative formats, according to a recent study by food science and economics researchers. While glass continues to be closely associated with quality, evolving environmental awareness and innovation in packaging could gradually shift consumer attitudes.

The study, published in Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, examined not only packaging preferences but also how much consumers are willing to pay for wine in different formats. It further explored how perceptions vary across generational groups, including Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z. These insights provide a more nuanced understanding of how tradition, price sensitivity, and sustainability considerations interact in shaping consumer behaviour.

Packaging plays a critical role in maintaining wine quality. Exposure to light, heat, and oxygen can significantly affect flavour and longevity. At the same time, proper sealing is essential to prevent microbial spoilage. Glass has long been valued for its ability to preserve these qualities, contributing to its enduring reputation. Over time, however, wine containers have evolved—from early pottery and wooden casks to modern alternatives such as paper cartons, bag-in-box formats, PET plastic bottles, flexible pouches, and aluminium cans.

Despite these options, perceptions of quality remain strongly tied to glass. Many consumers continue to view it as the hallmark of premium wine, although researchers suggest this perception could change gradually as alternative packaging improves and becomes more familiar. The study’s findings indicate that consumers are generally willing to pay more for wine packaged in glass than in any other format, with younger consumers, particularly those in Generation Z, showing the highest willingness to pay.

Aluminium emerged as the second most preferred option across all age groups, followed by PET plastic, while flexible pouches ranked lowest. Interestingly, the gap in willingness to pay between glass and other formats was substantial, with flexible packaging attracting significantly lower valuations. These results highlight the challenge alternative packaging faces in overcoming entrenched perceptions of quality and value, even as they offer potential environmental advantages.

The study also examined how providing information about sustainability influences consumer decisions. Participants were divided into groups that received different types of information, such as carbon footprint data or recyclability details, while a control group received none. The findings suggest that such information can meaningfully affect willingness to pay, though not always in predictable ways. For example, those exposed to carbon footprint information showed a higher willingness to pay for glass, while those given recycling information were slightly less willing. This indicates that how sustainability is communicated can significantly shape consumer responses.

Perceptions of environmental impact were notably divided. A substantial proportion of respondents viewed glass as the most sustainable option, while a nearly equal share considered it the least sustainable. This polarisation underscores the complexity of consumer understanding around sustainability, which is often influenced by conflicting messages and a lack of clarity. Researchers note that consumers can be sceptical of sustainability claims, particularly when faced with technical language or inconsistent labelling standards.

Overall, the findings suggest that while glass is likely to retain its status as the premium packaging choice, there is emerging interest—especially among younger consumers—in alternative formats. Improved communication around environmental benefits, along with continued innovation, could help expand this niche. At the same time, broader market shifts, such as supply chain disruptions experienced during the pandemic, may further encourage both producers and consumers to reconsider long-standing packaging conventions.

More information: Mark Walker Bartz et al, Perceptions and preferences of U.S. wine consumers: Glass vs. alternative packaging, Cleaner and Responsible Consumption. DOI: 10.1016/j.clrc.2026.100417

Journal information: Cleaner and Responsible Consumption Provided by University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture