By Mary Hightower
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — With nearly 400 years under its cork, glass is still the top choice for consumers when it comes to packaging preferences for wine, but sustainability concerns may open the way to other container types, a study by food science and economics researchers has found.
The study, " Perceptions and preferences of U.S. wine consumers: Glass vs. alternative packaging ," was published this year in the journal Cleaner and Responsible Consumption. In addition to packaging preferences, the researchers also explored what consumers were willing to pay for different packaging types and broke down differences in perceptions by generational group, including the Baby Boomer, Gen X, Millennial and Gen Z cohorts.
Containing quality
Packaging matters for wine. Light, heat and oxidation can enhance or destroy the quality of the beverage. Containers also need to seal out microbes that could cause spoilage. Glass has been used for centuries for its ability to preserve wine's qualities as it moves from the winery to the consumer. As winemaking evolved since the early Neolithic period, containers have evolved from pottery to wooden casks to glass.
Today, consumers also find wine packaged in paper cartons, bags in boxes, polyethylene terephthalate, or PET plastic bottles, flexible bags or pouches, and aluminum cans or bottles.
"In general, the perception is quality wine is in glass," said Renee Threlfall, one of the study authors. In her role as associate professor of food science, Threlfall is a viticulture expert and enologist for the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and the Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences. "That perception can change slowly as new and innovative packaging for wine becomes available."
How the study worked
To gain a better understanding of baseline perceptions of quality, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,000 U.S. wine consumers. The consumers were asked about their wine drinking preferences and practices before being asked a set of questions that measured their willingness to pay for 750 milliliters of wine in different packaging types.
The respondents were also randomly assigned to one of four groups that received differing levels of educational information about packaging sustainability. One group received information about the carbon footprint of packaging types, while another was given information about packaging recyclability. A third group was given full information about both carbon footprint and recyclability. A fourth group — the control group — was given no information.
When breaking down the responses by generational group, the researchers found that consumers were willing to pay higher prices for wine bottled in glass, with Gen Z being willing to spend the most on a 750-milliliter glass bottle — $35.38 — and Boomers willing to pay the least for the same bottle at $29.77.
Aluminum was the second choice among all four generational groups, followed by PET. Flexible pouches were last. Millennials said they would pay the least for PET pouches, at $17.12.
"I was really expecting the flexible treatment to perform better," said Walker Bartz, lead author of the study. Bartz was a graduate food science student at the time the study was conducted and now works for Walmart in packaging design. "I was pretty surprised at how much of a difference consumers were willing to pay for flexible bags when compared to other packaging types.
"Additionally, I thought aluminum would be closer to glass in regard to consumers' willingness to pay," Bartz said. "Aluminum has performed really well in the brewing industry but still has a way to go before it can have the same level of adoption for wine."
Sustainability concerns
Responses shifted when the researchers analyzed consumer responses based on the level of educational information provided. Consumers who saw the information on carbon footprint had the highest average willingness to pay for wine in glass — $25.37. Consumers who saw only the recycling information were less willing to pay, at $24.66. The group that didn't see any of the information had the lowest willingness to pay at $22.36.
These results suggest that providing sustainability information about packaging can influence how much consumers are willing to pay, with both positive and negative results for alternative packaging.
"The way this type of information is communicated and marketed is crucial for increasing the adoption of alternative packaging," the authors stated. "Based on these findings, the discount relative to glass packaging was significant, especially considering that glass willingness to pay is nearly double that of flexible bags."
When consumers were asked to identify the most environmentally sustainable packaging among glass, aluminum, plastic or paper, "perceptions of glass were notably polarized," the authors said.
"Approximately 45 percent of respondents considered glass the most sustainable option, while 39 percent viewed it as the least sustainable," the authors said.
There's another factor as well.
"During the pandemic, there was a serious shortage of glass wine bottles, so I think the sustainability concept could be used as marketing tools for alternative packaging, especially in wines that are consumed within a year after bottling," Threlfall said.
"The results of this study indicate that while glass is the preferred wine packaging among consumers, labeling the carbon footprint of commercial wines could be a viable marketing opportunity for alternative wine packaging," the authors said.
Lanier Nalley, head of the agricultural economics and agribusiness department and a co-author, said, "I think glass packaging will always be seen as 'premium,' but there appears to be a niche market amongst younger consumers — those 21 and over — for alternative packaging."
The authors note that "regardless of the packaging and product, consumers can be skeptical of sustainability claims."
"There is so much jargon about sustainability and so many different certifications that many times consumers struggle to internalize what sustainability means and what labels represent," Nalley said.
While the study doesn't directly affect his day-to-day work, Bartz said the research did give insights "on the pros and cons of sustainable packaging, and how it can impact consumer choices."
In addition to Bartz, Threlfall and Nalley, study authors included Brandon McFadden, professor and Tyson Endowed Chair in Food Policy Economics; and Shelby Rider, program associate, both with the agricultural economics and agribusiness department for both the Division of Agriculture and Bumpers College. Nalley and McFadden were key to the study's conceptualization, funding and for keeping the project on track, Threlfall said.
Glass also rose to the top outside of the study.
"I drink the wine my wife buys, and that is always in glass bottles," Nalley said.
McFadden added, "My last wine was also glass, but the fact that glass is so prevalent has a lot to do with that choice."
The United States is the fourth-largest wine producer globally, producing about 623 million gallons with a total economic impact of $323 billion , including wages, tourism, and taxes.
To learn more about Division of Agriculture research, visit the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station website: https://aaes.uada.edu
