In 2024, Nestlé trialed more than 200,000 recyclable paper Quality Street tubs in Tesco stores across the UK. The familiar purple was still there, along with gold detailing and a resealable lid. The company had preserved much of what made the packaging recognizable, but changing the material meant asking consumers to accept something different from a brand they had known for generations.
It's a challenge facing food and beverage manufacturers well beyond the confectionery aisle. Packaging changes for all sorts of reasons, from reducing costs and environmental impact to improving functionality or refreshing a brand's appearance. Regulation adds another consideration, particularly in Europe, where the EU's Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) began applying in August 2026, with further requirements to follow.
But while the business case for a redesign might be clear, the consumer response is harder to predict. A different material, shape, or finish can change how people recognize a product, judge its quality, and decide what it's worth.
How do brands know which changes consumers will welcome and which might put years of carefully built brand equity at risk?
The value consumers see before they taste the product
Some packaging becomes so familiar that it's difficult to separate it from the product itself. The colors, materials, and little rituals associated with opening it can become part of what people look forward to, particularly when a product has been around for generations.
Quality Street has been part of British Christmas celebrations since 1936. For decades, its colorful wrappers were part of the excitement, with children peering through the transparent cellophane like tiny stained-glass windows. And when the chocolates were gone, the familiar tins often began a second life, storing buttons, sewing supplies, childhood treasures and household odds and ends.
When Nestlé began replacing the shiny wrappers with recyclable paper in 2022, some consumers felt that something special had disappeared. In a Reddit discussion, one person recalled their grandfather holding the colored wrappers over their eyes each Christmas, a small ritual that became a treasured childhood memory. Others complained that the new wrappers looked dull or lacked the sparkle they remembered.
Yet Nestlé reported that 76% of consumers were positive or neutral about the change. Senior Brand Manager Jemma Handley acknowledged the difficulty of altering a much-loved brand. It's quite possible to appreciate the environmental reasons for changing a package and still miss the original. And the things consumers miss aren't necessarily the features a manufacturer would have identified as important. A colored wrapper might seem like a minor design detail until someone explains that it was part of a family Christmas tradition.
That makes the conversations surrounding a redesign just as interesting as the final preference scores. Asking consumers to choose between two packaging options might tell a manufacturer which they favor, but exploring the reasons behind those preferences can reveal much more about what the brand means to them. In some cases, those discoveries might even suggest opportunities for special editions or collectible packaging that preserve familiar traditions while the everyday product moves to a more sustainable format.
Consumers still want packaging to do its job
A more sustainable package is unlikely to win many fans if it's difficult to open, makes a mess or leaves people wondering whether their food will stay fresh.
McKinsey's 2025 survey of 5,068 consumers across the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden found that 60–70% rated food safety and shelf life as very or extremely important packaging characteristics. Both ranked ahead of environmental impact, suggesting that shoppers aren't necessarily willing to sacrifice the everyday benefits of packaging in exchange for something more sustainable.
This becomes even more interesting in restaurants, where the packaging is often part of how food is served. The EU's Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) introduces restrictions from 2030 on certain single-use formats, including individual condiment sachets used in restaurants. Replacing individual ketchup sachets with a shared dispenser might reduce waste, but what happens during a busy lunch service? Customers may have to queue, staff need to keep the dispenser clean, and everyone needs to be able to take the amount they want without making a mess. A perfectly reasonable environmental improvement could end up creating an inconvenience nobody anticipated.
Research by UK sustainability organization WRAP, working with Asda and Unilever, offers a useful comparison from the supermarket aisle. Rather than simply asking shoppers whether they supported refillable packaging, researchers followed their experiences from planning a shopping trip through to using refill stations. They also explored how changes to instructions, pricing information and staff assistance could make the process easier.
Someone might be enthusiastic about refillable packaging but feel less confident when confronted with an unfamiliar dispenser, especially if they're in a hurry or unsure how much they'll have to pay.
Restaurants face similar practical considerations, although the experience is quite different from grocery shopping. Watching customers and staff during a normal service could reveal whether new dispensing systems affect waiting times, portion control, cleanliness, or convenience. Those details matter because even customers who support the environmental benefits may become frustrated if the alternative makes a simple task more difficult.
Freshness is both a physical requirement and a consumer judgment
Would you trust a packet of fresh pasta as much if you couldn't see what was inside? The packaging might preserve the product just as effectively, but shoppers don't have access to laboratory results when they're standing in a supermarket aisle. They judge freshness through the cues available to them.
Research published in Food Quality and Preference offers an interesting illustration. In an experiment involving 119 UK-born participants, researchers compared food packaging with transparent windows, product photographs, and opaque designs across four categories. Transparent packaging performed better than packaging featuring product imagery on measures including expected freshness, quality, and willingness to purchase.
Manufacturers exploring recycled plastics, barrier-coated papers, and other materials need to consider how those changes affect a product's appearance on the shelf. A photograph can show shoppers what's inside, but it doesn't necessarily offer the same reassurance as seeing the food for themselves.
Even subtle changes to the packaging can influence impressions. Post-consumer recycled (PCR) materials sometimes have a different color, texture or finish from virgin materials. Some shoppers might associate those differences with environmental responsibility, while others could see an unfamiliar appearance and question the product's quality. Neither reaction necessarily reflects how well the packaging actually protects the food.
Rather than assuming that a redesigned pack needs a larger product photograph or a more prominent freshness claim, manufacturers can explore what is making shoppers uncertain in the first place. Is it the loss of transparency, the appearance of the new material or simply the fact that the packaging looks unfamiliar? Comparing alternative designs and exploring consumers' immediate associations can help establish which concerns are meaningful and whether they influence product choice.
The packaging must still meet food safety and shelf-life requirements. But passing those technical tests doesn't guarantee that shoppers will have the same confidence in the product when its appearance changes.
The sustainability trade-off isn't the same in every market
British shoppers tend to see paper and cardboard as more environmentally friendly than plastic, but that doesn't mean they'll always choose them. McKinsey's 2025 European packaging survey found that 62% of UK respondents considered paper and cardboard very or extremely sustainable, yet only 42% rated packaging's environmental impact as very or extremely important.
Attitudes vary across Europe, too. In Germany and Sweden, where deposit-return systems for plastic bottles are well established, consumers viewed PET packaging more favorably than respondents in several other markets. And while 52% of Italians surveyed said they were willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, that figure fell to 41% in France.
A manufacturer introducing the same packaging across several countries could find that a paper container appeals to British shoppers, while consumers elsewhere are perfectly comfortable with recyclable plastic. And even people who prefer the more sustainable option might change their minds when they see the price.
Take a premium food product available in three different packaging formats. Ask consumers which they prefer when all three cost the same, then introduce a price difference. The answers could reveal whether people are prepared to pay more for a particular material or whether other considerations, such as convenience and appearance, carry more weight. Repeating that exercise across countries could produce quite different results.
Environmental claims need care, too. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority issued additional guidance in January 2026 on responsibility for environmental claims across supply chains. It's worth checking not only whether a claim is accurate and supported by evidence, but also what shoppers think it means. A label describing packaging as recyclable, for example, may give people a different impression depending on their understanding of local recycling systems.
Why the best pack test starts before the design is finished
When Kadence International worked with Asahi Europe and International on a proposed redesign of Fuller's London Pride bottle, we wanted to explore whether augmented reality could reveal details that consumers might overlook when looking at conventional packaging images.
One group evaluated static packaging images, while another used smartphones to examine lifelike digital bottles in their own homes, including alongside competing products.
People using augmented reality were more likely to notice and talk about details such as the embossing on the glass, which helped give the bottle its premium appearance. These were features that mattered to the brand but weren't necessarily obvious when people looked at a flat image.
The proposed design hadn't changed between the two groups, but the experience of examining it had. For Asahi, that meant getting a better understanding of which details consumers picked up on and associated with the bottle's appearance.
Augmented reality also makes it possible to explore packaging in more realistic settings without relying entirely on physical prototypes. It doesn't replace handling the real thing, though. A digital bottle can't tell someone how heavy the glass feels or whether the cap is comfortable to open.
Consider a premium pasta sauce manufacturer thinking about replacing its traditional glass jar with a lighter container. Talking to existing customers might reveal how much the familiar jar contributes to their impression of quality. Comparing designs on a supermarket shelf could show whether the alternative is as recognizable, while trying the new container at home might uncover problems with pouring, storage, or getting the last of the sauce out.
The earlier a manufacturer understands what people actually value, the more freedom it has to explore different options before committing to production.
Change the packaging without losing what customers value
The pressure to rethink packaging isn't going away. Regulations are changing, manufacturers are looking for ways to reduce waste, and shoppers increasingly expect companies to take environmental responsibility seriously. For food and beverage brands, standing still may no longer be an option, even when the existing packaging is popular.
But a redesign shouldn't be judged on sustainability, cost or appearance alone. What matters is how the new package performs when someone encounters it on a supermarket shelf, takes it home and uses it. There may be features customers are happy to lose, others they would miss, and improvements they hadn't realized they wanted.
Getting those decisions right requires more than choosing the design that looks best in a presentation. It means involving consumers early enough that their experiences can influence what ultimately reaches the shelf, rather than discovering their objections after the packaging has already changed.
At Kadence International, we help food and beverage brands understand how people respond to packaging changes, from early ideas through to testing new designs. If you're considering a redesign, we'd welcome a conversation about what you want to find out before making the change.
Sources
- Nestlé UK & Ireland (2024). Nestlé trials Quality Street paper tub.
- Nestlé UK & Ireland (2016). Happy 80th Birthday Quality Street.
- The Yorkshire Post (2022). Why this Christmas looks different at Quality Street's Halifax factory.
- Reddit, r/CasualUK (2022). The dull new Quality Street wrappers (old vs new).
- European Commission (2025–2026). Packaging waste and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.
- European Union (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste.
- McKinsey & Company (2025). Sustainability in packaging: What do European consumers value in 2025?
- Competition and Markets Authority (2026). Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain.
- WRAP (2022). Increasing citizen participation in reuse and refill systems.
- Simmonds, G., Woods, A. T., and Spence, C. (2018). ‘Show me the goods’: Assessing the effectiveness of transparent packaging vs. product imagery on product evaluation. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 18–27.
- Kadence International. Harnessing augmented reality to power innovation in pack testing for Asahi.
FAQs
How does packaging affect brand equity?
Packaging influences how consumers recognize a product, judge its quality and decide what it's worth. Familiar colors, shapes and materials can also carry emotional associations, making even small changes important to how customers perceive a brand.
How can brands make packaging more sustainable without losing customers?
Brands need to understand which packaging features consumers value before making changes. Testing alternative materials and designs can reveal concerns about convenience, quality, freshness or appearance, helping manufacturers improve sustainability while maintaining customer confidence.
Why does packaging transparency affect perceptions of freshness?
Being able to see a food product can reassure shoppers about its appearance and quality. Research has found that transparent packaging can create stronger expectations of freshness and purchase interest than packaging featuring product photographs.
Do European consumers have different attitudes toward sustainable packaging?
Yes. Research shows differences across European markets in how consumers perceive packaging materials and their willingness to pay more for sustainable alternatives. Recycling infrastructure, familiarity with materials and price expectations can all influence preferences.
How is augmented reality changing packaging research?
Augmented reality allows consumers to examine realistic digital packaging in familiar environments before physical prototypes are produced. Kadence International's research with Asahi found that participants using augmented reality were more likely to notice and discuss premium bottle details than those viewing static packaging images.