Food and Beverage Archives

A bold move into familiar territory – will it pay off?

Chipotle’s announcement to open its first restaurant in the country, which inspired its menu, raises eyebrows and expectations. Partnering with Latin American restaurant operator Alsea, the US-based chain is entering a market where culinary authenticity isn’t a differentiator; it’s the starting point. For Chipotle, this market entry isn’t just about expansion. It’s a litmus test: Can a brand that interprets Mexican cuisine resonate with consumers who live and breathe it?

The answer will depend not just on flavor but also on strategy and whether modern tools like hyper-local research and cultural intelligence can bridge the gap between inspiration and expectation.

Lessons From the First Movers

Chipotle isn’t the first American brand to try its luck in Mexico. In 1992, Taco Bell debuted in the country with ambitions just as bold. It launched with localised menu tweaks and a confident footprint, but the venture didn’t last. The brand ultimately withdrew, not because of a lack of visibility or investment, but because the offering didn’t quite land with local palates.

That chapter is often cited in business schools, but rarely for what it truly was: an early experiment in exporting food culture into a market that didn’t ask for it. The reaction underscored a gap between adaptation and resonance that modern market research now works to close.

Starbucks’ early entry into Australia offers a parallel lesson. Despite its global brand power, the company struggled to gain traction in a country with a deeply rooted, independent coffee culture. The issue wasn’t coffee quality; it was a misread of consumer behavior, expectations, and local identity. Like Taco Bell in Mexico, Starbucks in Australia became a case study in how even the most successful brands can stumble without cultural alignment.

It’s not a failure; it’s a framework, a snapshot of how global ambition once outran local alignment.

The Evolution of Market Entry Strategy

When Taco Bell opened in Mexico City in the early ’90s, global expansion followed a different playbook. Brands leaned on instinct, broad profiling, and the belief that what worked in the US would translate with minimal adjustment.

But exporting a concept doesn’t guarantee acceptance. Back then, cultural nuance often took a back seat to operational scale. Research was high-level. Brands made decisions based on economic opportunity, not emotional alignment.

That’s changed. Today, market entry starts with precision—predictive analytics to map taste profiles, behavioral segmentation to decode subcultures, and AI-powered simulations to test concepts before rollout. Tools like geo-targeted taste testing, cultural immersion labs, and brand mapping techniques that track real-time perception shifts are helping brands decode how products will land before they ever hit shelves.

In Chipotle’s case, these tools offer a sharper perspective on what Mexican consumers want and will not tolerate.

What Chipotle Brings to the Table

Chipotle isn’t entering Mexico as a fast-food chain. It is arriving as a brand that’s always walked a fine line: Mexican-inspired, never quite Mexican. Its menu leans into simplicity—burritos, bowls, and tacos built around a few core ingredients. This model resonated with US consumers seeking customisable, ingredient-forward meals. But in Mexico, where flavor, preparation, and regional identity are sacred, that same simplicity may land very differently.

Chipotle is partnering with Alsea to bridge that gap, a strategic move offering far more than logistics. Alsea operates Starbucks, Domino’s, and Burger King in Mexico. Its distribution networks, real estate expertise, and consumer insight pipelines offer Chipotle a turnkey path to localisation.

This isn’t Chipotle’s first time using a partnership-first approach. In 2023, the brand entered the Middle East through an agreement with Alshaya Group, opening restaurants in Kuwait and the UAE. There, too, Chipotle leaned on a local partner to navigate cultural preferences and consumer habits. The result? A thoughtful, localised rollout that aligned Chipotle’s “real food, responsibly sourced” ethos with regional values.

But even with the right partner, Chipotle must tread carefully. Mexican consumers know their cuisine – and they know when they’re being sold a version of it. For Chipotle, the win won’t come from mimicry. It’s not competing with Mexico’s beloved taquerias; it’s introducing a distinctly Americanised take on Mexican food. The challenge? Making that distinction matter.

It’s still unclear whether Chipotle will localise its menu for the Mexican market or keep its US offerings intact, which is an early test of how much flexibility the brand is willing to show. Will the Mexican consumer see Chipotle as a fresh alternative, or a foreign remix of something they already do better?

Chipotle’s international journey hasn’t been without its challenges. The brand has maintained a limited footprint in the UK, with around 20 locations, primarily in London, serving a niche but loyal customer base. While not a breakout success, its measured expansion offers lessons in pacing, positioning, and the importance of location strategy. That experience appears to have informed a more deliberate and partnership-driven approach in newer markets like the Middle East and now, Mexico.

Chipotle will also enter a market with an established and competitive fast-casual ecosystem. Local players like El Fogoncito and international chains like Carl’s Jr. and Subway already cater to urban consumers with varied prices and menu formats. However, the real competition may come from independent taquerias and fondas, neighborhood staples that offer affordable, regional fare with generational credibility. Chipotle must offer not just quality, but a reason to belong in Mexico’s culinary hierarchy.

Cultural Intelligence as a Competitive Edge

Culture isn’t a box to check—it’s the playing field.

The brands that succeed today don’t just bring a product; they bring a point of view. They understand how they’re seen, how authenticity is defined, and which signals matter. Cultural intelligence is the edge that separates a foreign brand from a familiar one.

For Chipotle, entering Mexico means navigating a minefield of expectations, where a single design choice or flavor decision could spark either loyalty or backlash. What looks neutral on paper can carry deep meaning on the plate.

Urban consumers in Mexico are increasingly drawn to brands that balance tradition with health-consciousness, speed, and sustainability – expectations that Chipotle must meet beyond just flavor.

This is where research evolves from insight to assurance. Ethnographic studies, in-market panels, and social listening help brands anticipate friction points before they go live. Cultural intelligence doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s often the only way to earn a second look in heritage markets.

Chipotle executives remain optimistic. The company points to the country’s familiarity with Chipotle’s ingredients and affinity for fresh food as key reasons for expansion. But that framing may miss the heart of the matter. Mexican consumers don’t reject American chains outright – Starbucks and Domino’s enjoy massive success. What they’re wary of is reinterpretation. When it comes to their culinary heritage, familiarity isn’t enough. It is identity. And that’s sacred ground.

All eyes will be on how Mexican consumers respond, because in markets where food is identity, perception can make or break the plan. Early commentary across Mexican business and food media has ranged from curiosity to skepticism, with some questioning whether Chipotle’s version of “authentic” will resonate or fall flat. That tension may be the most accurate test of the brand’s cultural fluency.

The New Rules of Global Brand Expansion

Chipotle’s Mexico debut isn’t just another store opening; it’s a bellwether moment. In markets steeped in cultural pride, success no longer hinges on menu tweaks or marketing spend. It hinges on mindset. Brands must listen, learn, and adapt before launch and long after the doors open.

Around the world, consumers are demanding transparency, local relevance, and cultural respect. They expect brands to reflect their values, not just satisfy their appetites.

The one-size-fits-all era is over. Whether entering heritage markets like Mexico, culturally complex ones like India, or hyper-digitised ones like South Korea, the strategy must start with ground-level intelligence. Brands need to know who their customers are, what they value, and when they feel seen.

In food-driven markets, that also means understanding how flavors, textures, and even aromas trigger emotional and cultural responses. Sensory research – testing taste profiles, mouthfeel, and multisensory experiences with local audiences – is emerging as a critical tool for brands looking to translate offerings across borders. It’s not just about what’s on the menu, but how it feels, smells, and satisfies in context.

The companies that thrive treat research not as a formality but as their competitive edge. Chipotle’s move into Mexico may be a test, but it could also be the new blueprint for global brand growth.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

In cafés from Stockholm to Singapore, something curious is happening to the humble latte. The milk has changed – but the meaning of what’s being poured has changed even more. Oat milk, once a fringe choice in vegan corners of Brooklyn and East London, now commands entire refrigerator shelves in mainstream supermarkets. In London alone, sales of oat milk have more than doubled in recent years, outpacing almond and soy. But its rise has sparked a question with global implications: is this just a Western infatuation – or the beginning of a broader, localised reinvention?

As plant-based milks grow in popularity, they are revealing more than just a shift in taste. They have become markers of identity, class, health politics, and cultural resistance. For younger generations in Western cities, oat milk is as much a badge of sustainability as it is a coffee additive. But in Asia, where soy and coconut milk have been kitchen staples for generations, Western brands often appear as tone-deaf outsiders. In India, almond milk is aspirational, signifying affluence and global awareness. In Japan, flavoured soy milk is sold in vending machines next to corn soup and iced matcha. Each tells a story – not just of diet, but of what progress tastes like in different corners of the world.

The Western Story: When Climate Guilt Meets Café Culture

In the West, plant-based milk has surged from niche to mainstream at breakneck speed. In the UK, oat milk has overtaken almond as the best-selling non-dairy option, with the market valued at over £146 million in 2023 and projected to reach more than £430 million by 2030—a growth trajectory that reflects not just a change in taste, but in values. In the United States, the plant-based milk market has experienced significant growth, with revenue increasing from $2.71 billion in 2024, more than doubling since 2019. This surge reflects a broader trend, as supermarkets now allocate entire aisles to milk alternatives, accommodating the rising consumer demand.

For Gen Z and Millennials, this shift is as much about values as it is about flavour. The rise of “climatarian” diets—eating based on environmental footprint—has positioned oat milk as the virtuous option. It requires far less water than almond milk (48 litres per litre vs. 1,600) and carries a lower carbon footprint than cow’s milk. Among baristas, oat milk’s texture and foam-ability have cemented its status as the café go-to.

But these motivations are not universal. Among Gen X and Boomers, plant-based milk adoption often stems from health concerns—lactose intolerance, cholesterol, weight management—rather than climate ethics. Many still view oat and almond milk as a wellness product, not a moral choice. And the taste? It’s tolerated more than it is loved.

Despite its early momentum, the plant-based milk category in the U.S. is starting to show signs of fatigue. In 2024, sales declined by 5.2%, driven more by inflation-driven price sensitivity than by waning interest. What we’re seeing at Kadence International is that consumers are making sharper trade-offs at the shelf. While oat milk is still seen as on-trend, its pricing—often double that of dairy—has started to generate real resistance.

Image credit: Minor Figures

Minor Figures, a UK-based oat milk brand, has carved out a niche among creative professionals. Its hand-drawn packaging, minimalist design, and carbon-neutral commitment resonate with urban Gen Z. The brand installed oat milk refill stations in eco-minded cafés in East London, turning sustainability into something tangible. Co-founder Stuart Forsyth emphasises their approach: “We want to grow sustainably, we want to grow ethically and just see where this sort of journey takes us.”

Still, even Minor Figures must contend with growing scepticism about “performative sustainability.” A growing share of younger consumers now want traceability—where was it grown? What happens to the packaging? As oat milk begins to look like the new default, the question becomes: what comes after default?

Southeast Asia: Taste First, Sustainability Later

If oat milk is the sustainability symbol of the West, in much of Southeast Asia, it’s still a curiosity—often priced high, unfamiliar in flavor, and positioned more as a lifestyle accessory than a kitchen staple. Here, taste and tradition are still the gatekeepers, and consumer priorities follow a different rhythm.

Soy and coconut milks remain the dominant non-dairy choices across the region. Long before Western plant-based trends took hold, these ingredients were already foundational in Southeast Asian cuisine. From Indonesia’s tempeh to Thailand’s tom kha, from soy puddings in Vietnam to rich coconut-based curries in Malaysia, non-dairy milk isn’t an “alternative”—it’s the original.

Yet, the surge of interest in plant-based eating is not being ignored. The market for dairy alternatives in Southeast Asia hit USD 3 billion in 2024 and is forecast to reach USD 4.1 billion by 2030. But the motivations driving that growth are not always what Western marketers expect.

For urban Gen Z consumers, the shift is being fueled by café culture and aesthetic appeal. In Singapore, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City, oat milk is showing up in third-wave coffee shops, where latte art meets lifestyle branding. The creamy mouthfeel and mild taste of oat milk plays well with espresso, and baristas often frame it as the more “sophisticated” or “global” option. But the price—often two or three times higher than soy or coconut milk—makes it more of a treat than a household switch.

Health and digestion are also central to plant-based appeal. For Millennials balancing fast-paced urban lives with rising wellness awareness, soy milk retains a stronghold due to its protein content and familiarity. It’s not uncommon to see fortified soy drinks marketed for beauty benefits, gut health, or as part of fitness routines.

Among Gen X and Boomers, however, there’s little appetite for novelty. Traditional dairy is still prized, especially in countries like Vietnam, where sweetened condensed milk remains the heart of the national coffee. Coconut milk is not just nostalgic—it’s seen as natural, trusted, and tied to home cooking.

For Western brands attempting to gain traction here, the learning curve is steep. Oatly’s entrance into the region began with Malaysia and Singapore, distributed via speciality grocers and upscale cafés. The company announced in 2022 that Southeast Asia would form a “growth corridor” as part of its Asia expansion. But by 2024, it had shuttered its Singapore production facility to consolidate manufacturing back to Europe—a sign that demand in the region had not yet scaled fast enough to justify local production.

Oatly continues to maintain shelf presence in Singapore, but its growth in the region faces challenges. In December 2024, the company announced the closure of its production facility in Singapore as part of an asset-light supply chain strategy aimed at improving cost structures and reducing capital expenditures. This move reflects broader operational adjustments in response to evolving market dynamics in Asia.

The plant-based milk market in Singapore is becoming increasingly competitive, with local brands like Oatside gaining traction. In June 2023, Flash Coffee announced it would serve Oatside as the default in all milk-based beverages across its 24 outlets in Singapore. This highlights the growing consumer interest in plant-based options and the competitive landscape Oatly faces.

It’s evident that for plant-based products to succeed in Singapore, they must appeal to consumers in both taste and affordability. The sustainability pitch alone often isn’t sufficient; products need to meet consumer expectations in flavour and be competitively priced to gain widespread acceptance.

Local innovation may hold the key. In Thailand, companies are experimenting with rice milk made from surplus grains. In Indonesia, startups are blending coconut and cashew milk to cater to local palates while improving texture. Unlike oat, which has to be imported and processed, these ingredients are homegrown—offering not just flavor familiarity but economic resonance.

The tension in Southeast Asia isn’t whether consumers will adopt plant-based milk—it’s which ones, and why. Taste leads. Price follows. Sustainability, for now, lags behind. But for a younger class raised on Instagram, global branding, and iced matcha oat lattes, the next shift may arrive faster than expected.

Japan: Tradition Meets Innovation

In Japan, plant-based milk isn’t a trend—it’s tradition. Long before Western oat and almond milks arrived on convenience store shelves, soy was already woven into daily life. From tofu to miso to soy-based desserts, the legume’s liquid form has been consumed for centuries—not as a replacement, but as a cultural staple.

This historical baseline gives Japan a unique position in the global plant-based milk story. While much of the West is shifting away from cow’s milk, in Japan, dairy was never dominant to begin with. Lactose intolerance affects approximately 45% of the population to some degree, and the country’s culinary heritage has long favoured plant-based ingredients.

Yet even here, the landscape is shifting—quietly, and with the precision Japan is known for. In 2024, the soy milk segment still made up the overwhelming majority of plant-based milk sales, but oat and almond are inching upward. Projections estimate Japan’s oat milk market will expand from approximately $51.7 million in 2024 to over $163 million by 2033, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 12.6%.

But growth in Japan doesn’t mirror that of its Western counterparts. Oat milk here is not a lifestyle statement. It’s more likely to be encountered in a café serving Nordic-style pastries than in a supermarket fridge. In Tokyo’s upscale coffee districts—Daikanyama, Aoyama, and parts of Shibuya—young professionals are experimenting with oat lattes, but the movement is still niche.

Soy milk is still the default. People are curious about oat milk, but it’s expensive and unfamiliar. Soy is part of the Japanese identity.

Image credit: Marusan

The soy milk aisle in Japan looks nothing like its Western equivalents. There are over 30 flavours of soy milk in most convenience stores—banana, sweet potato, black sesame, and even matcha. Sold in small, colourful cartons, these drinks are as much a snack as a supplement. They appeal across generations and demographics, from school children to business executives.

Almond milk, introduced in earnest in the early 2010s, is viewed as a beauty product as much as a drink—touted for its vitamin E content and its role in “clean eating” routines. It’s marketed in lifestyle magazines and television ads featuring pop stars and Olympic athletes.

So where does that leave oat? Still finding its place. Japanese consumers value texture and subtlety in flavor—qualities that oat milk sometimes struggles to deliver in traditional dishes or teas. But its creamy body is finding fans in the coffee world, and as more cafés experiment with it, familiarity may breed demand.

What’s clear is that plant-based milk in Japan isn’t driven by environmental activism or dietary rebellion. It’s driven by harmony—with the body, with the palate, with the past. While the West frames oat milk as progress, in Japan, progress tastes familiar—it just might be flavoured with yuzu or kinako.

India: Plant-Based Milk as Urban Status and Spiritual Alignment

In India, dairy isn’t just nutrition—it’s ritual. From temple offerings of milk to the everyday comfort of chai with malai, dairy products are woven into the country’s emotional and religious fabric. The white splash in a steel tumbler holds centuries of symbolic weight. So any conversation about plant-based milk here starts not with a health trend, but with the question: what could possibly replace something sacred?

The answer, for now, is: not much—but something is beginning to stir.

India’s plant-based milk market is still young, valued at around USD 50 million in 2024, but it is projected to grow at nearly 15% CAGR over the next six years. That growth, however, is uneven and tells a story less about dietary shifts and more about social signalling.

For Gen Z in India’s metros, plant-based milk is about cruelty-free living, fitness influencers, and Instagrammed morning routines. It’s not uncommon to see “dairy-free” smoothies and almond milk lattes showcased in the digital lives of young professionals in Bengaluru, Delhi, or Mumbai. These consumers often cite animal welfare, clean eating, and compatibility with lactose intolerance—affecting an estimated 60% of the population—as reasons for switching. But the shift is as much aesthetic as it is ethical. Almond milk isn’t just good for you; it looks good in a glass.

Millennials, especially those navigating careers abroad or within cosmopolitan India, are caught between reverence for traditional staples like paneer and ghee, and a rising curiosity about global wellness norms. Many are not rejecting dairy outright, but are experimenting with substitutes during certain meals, fasts, or fitness cycles. The language of Ayurveda also looms large—“easy on digestion,” “balance for pitta”—guiding product marketing and consumer trust.

For Gen X and Boomers, though, the idea of dairy-free milk is still foreign. Cow’s milk is considered pure in Hindu tradition. To deviate from it can feel like cultural heresy, particularly in religious households. Even within vegan circles, spiritual negotiations are common—almond milk in the smoothie, but cow’s milk in the temple.

And yet, there is movement at the margins.

Image credit: Good Mylk Co.

One company pioneering this shift is Goodmylk, a Bengaluru-based startup founded by Abhay Rangan in his teens. The company produces cashew and oat-based milk, peanut curd, and vegan butter. What sets it apart is its insistence on affordability and accessibility. “If we make it premium, we limit who gets to choose it,” Rangan said in an interview. Goodmylk raised $400,000 in seed funding and has focused on scaling without pricing itself out of the Indian middle class.

The brand also localises its innovation. Mung bean and millet-based milks are in development—grains familiar to Indian households, now reimagined for lattes and cereal bowls. This strategy isn’t just functional—it’s cultural. “People trust what they’ve grown up with,” Rangan notes. “If we can use those same ingredients in new ways, we don’t have to change people. We just meet them where they are.”

What India reveals, perhaps more than any other market, is that the future of plant-based milk may not be about substitution—but about addition. The almond milk doesn’t replace the dairy in the chai. It sits next to it in the fridge, as an option, a symbol, a signal of modernity. Milk, in this context, is not just nourishment. It’s narrative.

Cross-Cultural Observations: What Tastes Like Progress?

From Bangkok cafés to Berlin grocery aisles, plant-based milk carries different meanings depending on where you are—and who you ask. To understand the global arc of milk alternatives, it’s not enough to look at adoption rates. You have to ask what each product represents in a cultural context. Because in the world of milk, progress has many flavours.

In the UK, oat milk has become shorthand for ethical living. It’s the fuel of the “climatarian”—those who select food based on its carbon footprint. It helps that oats grow abundantly in Europe and require far less water than almonds. But this is also about optics. Oat milk in a flat white signals something specific: sustainability without sacrifice. It says, “I’m paying attention.”

In Japan, soy milk is the opposite of a trend—it’s a staple. You’ll find banana soy milk in vending machines, black sesame soy in school lunch trays, and unflavored soy behind the counter of every ramen bar. Oat milk, by contrast, is a foreigner: imported, expensive, and still largely a café novelty. Where Western markets romanticise innovation, Japan reveres the familiar.

In India, almond milk is climbing—but it’s doing so as a marker of status. Its presence in a smoothie bowl or a vegan café menu connotes wellness, modernity, and a kind of cosmopolitan sophistication. It’s aspirational, not essential. Meanwhile, mung bean and millet milks are emerging quietly from startups like Goodmylk, using ingredients that feel both futuristic and deeply local.

In Southeast Asia, coconut milk is tradition in liquid form. It’s thick, aromatic, and the base of comfort food across generations. Oat milk, by comparison, is still figuring out how to earn trust—or at least a spot in the fridge. Soy milk, sold sweet and chilled at street stalls and in grocery chains, continues to dominate the category for its price, protein, and familiarity.

And then there’s the matter of price. Across nearly every market, oat milk carries a premium—often double or triple the price of cow’s milk, and far more than local alternatives. In the UK, it retails for £1.90 per litre compared to £1.20 for dairy. In Southeast Asia, import costs push oat milk into the realm of aspirational indulgence.

This price disparity cuts to the heart of a growing identity tension: who gets to eat for the planet? In many regions, sustainability remains a luxury. And with that, a subtle backlash is brewing against the Westernisation of food. Consumers in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are increasingly questioning why “plant-based” must mean foreign, expensive, and out of touch with local ecosystems.As these questions simmer, the most forward-thinking brands aren’t scaling Western models—they’re turning inward. Instead of exporting oat milk to Jakarta or Mumbai, they’re asking: what’s already growing here? And how do we make that the new norm?

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Global demand for chocolate is rising, even as consumer concern over sugar, processed foods and wellness reaches new heights. Across the UK, the US, and key Asian markets, confectionery companies are reporting growth not just in premium segments, but also in functional and “better-for-you” formulations once considered niche.

The shift reflects a broader recalibration of what indulgence means in the modern marketplace. Shoppers are eating less in volume but paying more for chocolate that aligns with evolving personal values-whether that means fewer ingredients, higher cocoa content, or the addition of protein and adaptogens.

Multinational players and local upstarts alike are moving quickly to capture this redefined sweet spot. In the US, dark and portion-controlled chocolates are gaining share despite higher prices. In the UK, new regulations on high-sugar foods have prompted a wave of reformulation and repositioning. And in Asia, where per capita consumption remains relatively low, demand is accelerating as chocolate becomes both an aspirational treat and a vessel for functional benefits.

For an industry once synonymous with excess, chocolate is proving remarkably adaptive. What was once a discretionary snack is now being repackaged as self-care-and that subtle shift in perception is proving to be a powerful driver of growth.

A Global Market Defying Expectations

Chocolate’s commercial momentum is not just anecdotal – it’s backed by hard numbers that defy nutritional orthodoxy. While public health messaging around sugar reduction has grown louder, global retail sales of chocolate continue to expand, particularly in markets where health consciousness and affluence are rising in tandem.

Recent industry estimates place global chocolate confectionery sales at around US$130 billion, with steady value growth driven by pricing power, premiumisation, and consumer appetite for smaller, higher-quality products. In contrast to other processed snack categories, chocolate has retained pricing resilience and cultural relevance – often viewed not as a vice, but as an acceptable reward.

In mature markets like the United States and the United Kingdom, manufacturers are offsetting flat or declining volumes with premium offerings, clean-label positioning, and targeted innovation. In the US, even as unit sales dipped last year, dollar sales rose. UK consumers, faced with inflation and regulatory pressure on high-fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) products, are adjusting by buying smaller formats or turning to private-label options – but they haven’t walked away from the category.

In Asia, the story is different. Markets like China and Singapore are seeing growing interest in chocolate, particularly among urban, middle-class consumers. Premium brands, often imported, are benefiting from rising disposable income and a gifting culture that values quality and presentation. Even in Japan, where the market has been contracting, companies are finding ways to win back consumers through functional formulations and high cocoa content offerings.

Whether as comfort, status symbol, or perceived health supplement, chocolate’s role is being redefined. And with that reframing comes an expansion in both who is buying – and why.

Changing Consumer Drivers

The growth in chocolate sales isn’t coming from nostalgia alone. It reflects a more nuanced shift in consumer mindset – one that doesn’t reject indulgence, but instead reclassifies it. Chocolate is increasingly seen as compatible with modern lifestyles, not in spite of its decadence but because of how consumers are redefining what balance looks like.

Across markets, there is growing tolerance – even encouragement – for what industry analysts term “permissible indulgence.” Rather than eliminating treats, consumers are looking for control: smaller portions, higher cocoa content, and labels that read more like pantry ingredients than chemistry sets. In the UK, more than a third of chocolate consumers say they are consciously limiting sugar – but not abstaining entirely. In the US, 91% say they’re willing to pay more for chocolate that feels like a personal reward.

What has changed is the framing. Where chocolate once sat squarely in the category of “guilty pleasures,” it’s now more likely to be marketed as self-care. Brands have responded with messaging that leans on mood, mindfulness, and mental health – themes that resonate particularly well with millennial and Gen Z consumers. In Asia, products with added collagen or calming botanicals are performing strongly, positioned as part of a broader wellness routine.

Functionality is part of the equation. But just as important is the emotional rationale. In a volatile global climate, consumers are granting themselves small indulgences, so long as they carry a justification – be it clean ingredients, health benefits, or sustainability claims. Chocolate, perhaps more than any other treat, has adapted to meet that need without losing its core appeal.

Market	Primary Positioning	Trending Segments	Notable Retail Behavior
US	Indulgence-first	Dark, functional, protein-added	Portion control, DTC growth
UK	Sustainability/Moderation	Plant-based, lower sugar, private label	HFSS-regulated placement, ethical labels
Japan	Functional-first	Stress-relief, GABA, polyphenols	Mini packs, convenience store dominance
China	Premium & Aspirational	Imported brands, gift sets	Gifting culture, boutique speciality retail
Singapore	Luxury meets wellness	Vegan, single-origin, no added sugar	Gifting culture, boutique specialty retail

Innovation in Product Development

Much of chocolate’s resilience can be traced to how aggressively manufacturers have innovated in recent years. The category has undergone a quiet but significant transformation, with R&D efforts focused on meeting modern expectations around health, quality, and purpose.

Product reformulation is now a baseline strategy. Across the UK and parts of Europe, pressure from HFSS regulations and consumer advocacy groups has accelerated the development of lower-sugar alternatives. Major brands, including Mondelēz and Nestlé, have introduced chocolate lines with 30% less sugar, while also cutting artificial additives and using alternative sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit. In the US, Hershey has expanded its zero-sugar range and invested in cleaner labels across its mainstream portfolio.

The fastest-growing segment, however, isn’t necessarily lower in sugar – it’s higher in cocoa. Dark chocolate continues to outperform traditional milk variants, buoyed by its association with antioxidants, reduced sugar, and a more “sophisticated” profile. Lindt & Sprüngli, Ferrero, and other global players have reported strong growth in dark chocolate sales across both Western and Asian markets, supported by expanding ranges with cocoa content of 70% and above.

In Asia, innovation has taken a more functional route. Japanese confectioners, long known for their product precision, have introduced chocolate fortified with stress-reducing botanicals, dietary fibre, and even blood pressure–supporting polyphenols. In China, new launches incorporate traditional ingredients like ginseng or goji berries, often positioned as “balance-enhancing” or “body-friendly.”

At the premium end, smaller brands are leading with single-origin sourcing, artisanal techniques, and clean-label credentials. Their appeal lies not just in purity of ingredients but in transparency – with packaging that highlights cocoa origin, ethical certification, and handcrafted quality. These innovations are helping redefine chocolate as not just permissible, but aspirational – a snack that delivers on taste, health alignment, and brand values simultaneously.

Some of the most telling examples of how chocolate makers are evolving come from established players experimenting beyond their traditional formulas.

In the UK, Mondelēz launched the Cadbury Plant Bar, a vegan version of its flagship Dairy Milk, using almond paste in place of dairy. The move marked the brand’s first foray into plant-based chocolate in nearly two centuries of operation, reflecting not just a shift in ingredients, but a broader strategy to reach flexitarian consumers. While still a small part of total sales, the Plant Bar represents a growing segment within confectionery where plant-based credentials are seen as a proxy for health, ethics, and modernity.

In the United States, Hu Kitchen has carved out a loyal following by doing less. Its clean-label chocolate bars – free from dairy, refined sugar, palm oil, lecithins, and emulsifiers – have thrived in premium health retailers and online marketplaces. The brand’s minimalist packaging and “Get Back to Human” tagline struck a chord with consumers seeking indulgence without compromise. Hu’s rapid success led to its acquisition by Mondelēz in 2021, underscoring how legacy players are using startup acquisitions to absorb innovation.

In Japan, functionality is a competitive advantage. Meiji’s “The Chocolate” line and Lotte’s “GABA-infused” chocolates target adult consumers seeking both pleasure and health benefits. GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid), a naturally occurring neurotransmitter linked to stress reduction, is featured prominently in Lotte’s marketing, tapping into Japan’s growing demand for mood-supportive snacks. These products are often sold in convenience stores – not as candy, but as part of the functional food aisle.

Taken together, these cases illustrate how manufacturers are navigating a more complex chocolate landscape – where taste is non-negotiable, but health cues, ingredient ethics, and wellness positioning are becoming essential to growth.

Packaging and Positioning as Strategy

As much as product formulation has shifted, so too has the way chocolate is presented – and that evolution is proving just as important in driving consumer uptake. Packaging and messaging have become strategic tools in redefining how chocolate fits into a health-conscious lifestyle. In many cases, what’s on the outside of the bar is doing just as much work as what’s inside it.

One of the most noticeable changes across global markets is the move away from traditional share-size formats toward portion-controlled, individually wrapped offerings. Whether driven by calorie-conscious consumers or regulatory nudges, this shift aligns with broader health narratives. Smaller sizes are marketed not as a cutback, but as a mindful choice. In the UK, major supermarkets have reorganised confectionery aisles to prioritise “treatwise” options, while in Japan and Singapore, individually wrapped squares dominate shelves, reinforcing the idea of moderation and intentionality.

At the premium end of the market, design language has also evolved. Brands are increasingly leaning on matte finishes, minimalist typography, and earthy colour palettes to signal quality and modernity. Sustainable packaging has become a competitive differentiator: compostable wrappers, recyclable boxes, and carbon-neutral claims are now common among premium and artisanal brands. According to NielsenIQ, 72% of global consumers say they’re willing to pay more for products that offer sustainable packaging, and confectionery is no exception. In the UK, where eco-consciousness is deeply embedded in consumer decision-making, this has helped smaller brands gain traction.

Equally important is the messaging printed on the front of pack. Chocolate makers are experimenting with a vocabulary that reshapes indulgence into alignment with health, ethics, or personal care. Terms like “source of antioxidants,” “plant-based,” “no added sugar,” and “ethically sourced cacao” are increasingly used to build trust and justify premium pricing. In Asia, functional benefits take centre stage, with Japanese and South Korean brands promoting relaxation, cognitive support, and gut health directly on packaging. In the US, mood-related cues – “energy,” “calm,” or “focus” – are finding their way onto wrappers once reserved for novelty slogans.

What’s striking is how positioning diverges across markets, reflecting local consumer priorities. In the United States, chocolate is still framed primarily around indulgence, but with an upgraded narrative: it’s an “earned” treat, often marketed with language around self-reward and quality ingredients. In Japan, functionality leads, with packaging that emphasises health outcomes and precision. In the UK, sustainability and transparency are front and centre, with brands competing on cocoa sourcing, packaging recyclability, and sugar reduction metrics.

For multinationals, adapting packaging and messaging to these local nuances has become essential. What resonates in a Los Angeles health food store may not land in a Tokyo pharmacy or a London high street supermarket. But across all regions, the direction is clear: chocolate is no longer sold simply as a sweet. It is being positioned as a curated experience – one that reflects the consumer’s lifestyle, values, and desired level of indulgence.

Regulatory and Retail Landscape

As health concerns reshape consumer expectations, regulatory bodies and retailers are playing a growing role in influencing how, where, and what kind of chocolate is sold. Far from slowing the category, these shifts are prompting structural changes in how brands operate – from formulation to shelf placement.

In the United Kingdom, one of the most ambitious regulatory efforts has been the government’s restriction on the promotion of high-fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) products. Since October 2022, chocolate and other confectionery brands have faced limitations on prominent in-store placements such as aisle ends and checkouts, along with bans on advertising HFSS products during primetime TV and online slots aimed at children. While critics initially forecast a sharp decline in impulse sales, early results from Kantar suggest a more nuanced picture: some volume loss has occurred, but consumers are increasingly switching to HFSS-compliant versions or smaller-format treats that are still allowed in high-traffic zones. Brands that anticipated these changes – either by reformulating or launching reduced-sugar SKUs – have retained shelf visibility and sales stability.

Retail strategy is also evolving in response to both regulation and pandemic-era behavioural shifts. The rise of direct-to-consumer (DTC) models and online artisanal chocolate brands has created a new layer of competition. In the United States, premium players like Dandelion Chocolate and Raaka have built thriving businesses selling craft bars online, complete with subscription models and seasonal releases. In Asia, particularly Singapore and South Korea, social commerce and messaging platforms are enabling local chocolatiers to bypass traditional retail entirely.

At the same time, speciality health retailers such as Whole Foods, Planet Organic, and iHerb have expanded their chocolate assortments, focusing on functional, low-sugar, and vegan options. Their merchandising strategies give these products front-facing visibility – a stark contrast to conventional supermarkets, where legacy brands still dominate shelf space.

Traditional grocers are responding. IGD data shows that major supermarket chains in Europe and Asia are reallocating shelf space toward “better-for-you” indulgences, particularly as demand grows for low-sugar and plant-based chocolate. Some are trialling “wellness treat” zones, while others are integrating chocolate into broader health-and-lifestyle aisles – a sign that chocolate’s category boundaries are shifting.

Taken together, these developments point to a category in flux – not shrinking, but reshaping. Chocolate remains a high-frequency purchase, but how it’s discovered, promoted, and purchased is changing rapidly, driven by policy, platform, and purpose.

Market Outlook and Investment Trends

Chocolate’s continued growth in a health-conscious world is not an anomaly. It is a lesson in the malleability of consumer perception – and a case study in how legacy categories can evolve when indulgence is repackaged as alignment with personal values.

From an investment standpoint, this has not gone unnoticed. The past five years have seen a wave of M&A activity as global FMCG players seek to future-proof their portfolios. Mondelēz’s acquisitions of Hu Kitchen and Lily’s, Mars’ purchase of KIND and Trü Frü, and Nestlé’s investments in functional and plant-based startups reflect a strategic shift: legacy companies are buying their way into health-aligned chocolate because they understand that future growth lies at the intersection of taste, wellness, and ethics.

At the same time, private label competition is intensifying, particularly in markets like the UK and Asia. As inflation pressures persist, consumers are increasingly opting for supermarket-owned brands that deliver on price without abandoning claims like “ethical sourcing” or “no artificial ingredients.” Retailers are capitalising on this, not only by expanding their own lines but also by positioning them as premium, narrowing the gap between store brand and artisanal in both packaging and provenance. In the UK, Tesco’s and Sainsbury’s premium private label chocolates now include single-origin and vegan lines. In Asia, Don Quijote has become a bellwether for how convenience and quality can coexist, with curated chocolate assortments from both domestic and imported brands.

The bigger question is whether the category can continue to bridge the tension between health and indulgence. All signs point to yes – but not without nuance. The hybridisation of chocolate is likely to continue: functional ingredients will gain ground, especially those linked to mental wellness, gut health, and energy support. Meanwhile, classic indulgence will persist, albeit in cleaner formats and more restrained sizes. Consumers are not abandoning pleasure; they are recalibrating it.

The success of chocolate in this new era lies in its emotional elasticity. It can be a gift, a ritual, a moment of calm, or a functional snack – sometimes all at once. Unlike many processed food categories that struggle to justify their place in a health-first world, chocolate has managed to make itself feel essential. That is not just clever marketing; it’s a deep understanding of how modern consumers make trade-offs. They don’t want to eliminate joy – they want to justify it.

For investors, that makes chocolate a rare thing in today’s food landscape: a category with legacy scale, emotional equity, and evolving relevance. For brands, the challenge now is not to follow fads, but to build trust, deliver on new expectations, and never forget that taste is still the gatekeeper. The future of chocolate will belong to those who understand that indulgence and intention are no longer opposites – they are partners in modern consumerism.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

In early 2022, Panera Bread introduced its Unlimited Sip Club, a subscription service granting customers unlimited self-serve beverages for a monthly fee. It was among the first major fast-food chains to test a subscription-based model, shifting from traditional loyalty programs to a strategy aimed at securing recurring revenue and increasing customer visits.

Subscription models are becoming a mainstay as quick-service restaurants (QSRs) experiment with new ways to increase customer loyalty and spending. A 2025 report by the Food Institute found that 76% of restaurant owners plan to integrate gamification into their loyalty programs, signalling a move away from static rewards toward interactive engagement. The goal: turning casual customers into repeat visitors who interact with brand platforms daily.

The challenge now is whether consumers see enough long-term value in fast-food subscriptions to maintain their commitment – and whether brands can sustain profitability without diluting the appeal. As competition grows, success will hinge on balancing affordability, exclusivity, and genuine savings that justify a recurring fee.

The Consumer Shift Driving This Trend

Fast food has traditionally thrived on consistency – standardised meals, rapid service, and predictable experiences. But consumer expectations are shifting. Today’s diners seek more than just convenience; they crave value, exclusivity, and interactive experiences. This shift is fuelling the rise of subscription-based dining and gamified loyalty programs, turning occasional transactions into habitual brand engagements.

Subscription models have reshaped industries from entertainment to retail, and now they’re making their mark on fast food. A 2024 PYMNTS report found that 45% of US consumers subscribe to at least one food or beverage service, a sharp rise from 36% in 2020. Meal kits and coffee subscriptions paved the way, demonstrating the viability of prepaid dining experiences. Now, QSRs are leveraging similar strategies to lock in repeat visits and drive incremental revenue.

Beyond subscriptions, fast-food chains are integrating gamification to deepen customer engagement. Interactive loyalty programs appeal to psychological triggers – competition, achievement, and status – encouraging repeat visits. Rather than simply buying a meal, customers now earn points, unlock exclusive perks, and advance through membership tiers. A 2023 McKinsey report found that well-designed gamified programs can increase customer spending by up to 40%, making them a lucrative tool for QSRs looking to sustain long-term loyalty.

Younger generations, in particular, are embracing these changes. A recent survey found that millennials and Gen Z are 35% more likely than older demographics to engage with gamified rewards. The demand for digital-first loyalty experiences is fueling innovation worldwide. In Japan, McDonald’s revamped its MyMcDonald’s Rewards with AI-driven personalisation, offering points multipliers during off-peak hours to encourage visits. Similarly, in the U.K., Pret A Manger has expanded its subscription model to include personalised incentives based on purchase history. The strategy is clear: engagement must go beyond discounts – it must create a habitual relationship between brand and customer.

There’s also a shift away from traditional discounts in favour of experience-driven perks. A 2024 Kantar study found that 60% of consumers now prioritise rewards that offer exclusivity over basic price cuts. Brands are adapting: Taco Bell’s Fire Tier Rewards unlock early access to menu innovations, while Domino’s Surprise Frees program randomly gifts free food to loyal customers, fostering excitement rather than predictable point redemptions. The shift signals that loyalty is no longer just about savings – it’s about status, engagement, and emotional connection.

The takeaway? Consumers no longer just want rewards – they want engagement. Subscription models and gamified loyalty programs are transforming routine purchases into ongoing brand relationships. As more fast-food brands invest in interactive engagement, the traditional playbook for customer retention is being rewritten. The next challenge? Ensuring these programs provide lasting value rather than becoming another short-lived marketing experiment.

How Fast Food Chains Are Adopting Gamification & Subscriptions

Fast-food chains are no longer simply rewarding repeat customers – they’re restructuring their entire loyalty approach. Subscription services and gamified rewards are turning once-sporadic transactions into habitual spending, offering brands a more reliable revenue stream. While traditional point-based programs still exist, more restaurants are shifting to systems that keep customers engaged daily, whether through app-based perks, tiered memberships, or monthly meal passes.

Pret A Manger, for example, has aggressively expanded its subscription model, first in the UK and now globally. Its “Club Pret” program, offering unlimited barista-made drinks for a fixed monthly fee, drove a 22% increase in global sales in 2023. The company reports that subscribers visit five times more frequently than non-members, significantly increasing food purchases alongside beverages. Similarly, McDonald’s Japan has rolled out digital-exclusive deals through its loyalty app, leveraging gamification to incentivise repeat visits.

While these models generate steady income, they also require constant fine-tuning. Subscription fatigue is real, and consumers are quick to cancel if they don’t see continuous value. Brands must balance pricing, perks, and exclusivity to keep customers engaged without feeling locked into a program that doesn’t evolve. Those that succeed – by offering tangible savings, personalised deals, and interactive rewards – are rewriting the rules of fast-food loyalty.

Luckin Coffee’s Play-to-Win Strategy

Image credit: Luckin Coffee

In China, Luckin Coffee has turned customer retention into a game. Unlike traditional point-based rewards, its app features dynamic challenges that encourage repeat visits. Customers who hit spending milestones unlock tiered discounts and free drinks, creating a loyalty ecosystem that goes beyond transactional incentives. The higher the engagement, the more exclusive the rewards – an approach that has cemented Luckin’s digital dominance in China’s competitive coffee market.

Luckin’s approach has yielded significant results. Its 2023 earnings report revealed that over 75% of transactions now originate through its app, demonstrating the effectiveness of its loyalty system. Customers engage with the platform an average of 21 times per month, far surpassing industry benchmarks. By integrating gamification into its core business model, Luckin has transformed occasional buyers into habitual customers, proving that digital-first strategies can redefine fast-food loyalty.

Burger King’s Subscription Bet in Europe

In Germany, Burger King is testing a different kind of subscription – one that locks in discounts rather than specific products. The chain’s King Deals program, launched in 2023, allows app users to pay a small monthly fee in exchange for access to exclusive offers, including half-price meals and premium add-ons. The goal is to increase repeat visits while giving customers a reason to keep the app on their phones.

Early reports suggest that the strategy is working. Burger King Germany has seen a 22% increase in repeat visits from subscribers compared to non-members, and the company is now considering expanding the program to other European markets.

Shifting From Discounts to Engagement

Subscription-based dining and gamified loyalty programs aren’t just about offering discounts – they’re about changing how consumers interact with fast-food brands. Whether it’s Panera making beverage purchases a habit, Luckin Coffee turning transactions into a game, or Burger King incentivising app engagement, QSRs are redefining customer relationships.

Why QSRs Are Betting on Gamified Loyalty

Fast-food chains are increasingly adopting subscription models and gamified loyalty programs to enhance customer engagement and secure predictable revenue streams. These strategies not only foster repeat business but also provide a competitive edge in a crowded marketplace.

Predictable Revenue Through Subscriptions

For QSRs, subscriptions provide a buffer against industry volatility, replacing sporadic purchases with predictable, recurring income. Pret A Manger’s “Club Pret” subscription, which grants members up to five barista-made drinks per day for a fixed monthly fee, has transformed the company’s revenue model. The initiative played a key role in pushing Pret’s global sales past £1 billion in 2023, marking the first time in its history the company reached this milestone.

Other brands are experimenting with subscription-like promotions to drive habitual spending. In October 2023, Domino’s introduced its “Emergency Pizza” initiative, allowing loyalty members to redeem a free pizza after making a qualifying purchase. The result was a surge in sales and two million new loyalty sign-ups, reinforcing the effectiveness of structured, value-driven offers in retaining customers.

Enhanced Engagement Through Gamification

Gamified loyalty programs tap into behavioural psychology, using incentives, challenges, and exclusive content to drive repeat visits. McDonald’s Australia’s “MyMacca’s Rewards” program rewards customers with points per dollar spent, which can be redeemed for menu items – a model that has significantly increased app engagement. Beyond simple reward systems, leading QSRs are now incorporating dynamic challenges and real-time achievements, creating a sense of urgency and exclusivity that encourages repeat interactions.

Gamification is proving to be more than a gimmick – it translates directly into higher spending. A Mastercard report found that brands leveraging interactive loyalty mechanics saw a 60% spike in app engagement and a sixfold increase in purchase frequency within the first year of implementation. These figures highlight the growing role of digital ecosystems in fostering long-term brand loyalty.

Social Status Rewards and Exclusive Access

Beyond financial rewards, status-based loyalty structures add another layer of appeal. Customers are often willing to engage more deeply when programs offer exclusive perks tied to higher-tier status. Pizza Express has capitalised on this psychology with a loyalty program structured around bronze, silver, and gold tiers, where members unlock escalating benefits over time. The approach has attracted 2.7 million sign-ups in two years, demonstrating that tiered rewards can drive long-term engagement more effectively than one-time discounts.

Image credit: Pizza Express

Cross-brand collaborations are also enhancing the value proposition of loyalty subscriptions. Walmart+ has partnered with Burger King to provide members with discounts on digital orders and periodic free items, including a quarterly free Whopper. These partnerships add tangible benefits to subscription models, reinforcing brand value while leveraging existing customer bases.

The Numbers Behind Loyalty Innovation

The impact of these strategies is clear. Pret A Manger’s subscription service contributed to a significant jump in global system sales, reaching £1.1 billion while underlying profits rose 12% to £166 million in 2023. Similarly, Domino’s leveraged gamified loyalty to reverse declining sales, expanding its rewards program by an additional two million members in just a few months.

Image credit: Pret A Manger

As the fast-food landscape becomes increasingly competitive, QSRs that invest in loyalty innovation will have a distinct edge. Whether through gamification, subscription models, or status-based incentives, the brands that can turn customer interactions into habit-forming experiences will define the future of fast-food engagement.

The Risks and Challenges of Subscription-Based Fast Food

As more QSRs experiment with these models, potential pitfalls are becoming apparent. From subscription fatigue and economic pressure to logistical hurdles and consumer backlash, brands face mounting challenges in retaining long-term loyalty and sustaining profitability.

Subscription Fatigue

As subscriptions extend beyond streaming and retail into fast food, many consumers are reaching their limit. Households already manage monthly fees for entertainment, groceries, fitness apps, and meal kits – and they’re cutting back. A recent study found that 42% of US consumers feel overwhelmed by the number of subscriptions they manage, with many actively cancelling non-essential services.

This trend isn’t confined to Western markets. In South Korea, a Nielsen study reported a 28% drop in new subscription sign-ups across industries, including food and beverage. Consumers are becoming more selective, gravitating toward services that offer flexibility, exclusive benefits, and genuine savings. For QSRs, this means that simply offering a discount isn’t enough – brands must differentiate their programs through value-driven perks and long-term incentives or risk being abandoned.

Economic Pressures

Fast-food subscriptions thrive in strong economic conditions, but inflation and consumer spending cutbacks are testing their durability. While some customers justify paying upfront for daily meals or drinks, others are questioning the necessity. A recent PwC consumer sentiment report found that 60% of global consumers are actively reducing discretionary spending, with dining out and food subscriptions among the first to be reevaluated.

In Europe, where inflation has driven up food prices, subscription-based meal plans are under strain. A Kantar study showed that 35% of UK consumers have cut back on restaurant subscriptions and food delivery services, shifting toward home-cooked meals instead. Unless fast-food brands can demonstrate tangible cost savings or exclusive access to high-value perks, subscriptions risk becoming expendable luxuries during economic downturns.

The Operational Strain of Managing Demand

Beyond consumer concerns, fast-food chains must grapple with the logistical complexities of recurring transactions. Unlike one-time promotions, subscriptions guarantee a steady flow of orders, requiring precise forecasting for inventory, staffing, and fulfilment.

Japan’s Mos Burger learned this the hard way when it piloted a burger subscription model. Demand exceeded projections, leading to ingredient shortages and strained operations. The company had to restrict redemptions to non-peak hours to prevent service disruptions. This underscores a fundamental risk: if not carefully managed, subscriptions can overload supply chains, increase waste, and frustrate both staff and customers.

Technology is another critical hurdle. Seamless integration of subscriptions into apps and point-of-sale systems is essential, yet many brands underestimate the investment required. In India, a major fast-food chain faced backlash when its digital loyalty program crashed under heavy demand, blocking paid subscribers from redeeming offers. The PR fallout was immediate, reinforcing the importance of scalable, reliable tech infrastructure before launching subscription models at full scale.

Consumer Backlash

When customers feel they’re not getting enough value, they cancel – fast. A 2023 PYMNTS report found that 49% of subscription users drop a service within six months if they don’t perceive consistent benefits.

QSRs are particularly vulnerable to churn. Unlike streaming platforms, where exclusive content keeps subscribers engaged, fast-food loyalty hinges on repeat consumption. If consumers hit unexpected limits – whether through redemption restrictions, menu exclusions, or underwhelming savings – they abandon the program entirely.

In France, a leading coffee chain faced widespread backlash when customers discovered that its “unlimited drink subscription” excluded premium beverages – a restriction buried in fine print. Social media complaints erupted overnight, leading to a 32% drop in renewals within three months. The company was forced to revamp its offer to rebuild trust, but the damage had already dented its reputation.

For fast-food brands, subscription success hinges on transparency, trust, and long-term value. Consumers are willing to commit to recurring spending – but only if the benefits outweigh the cost. In an increasingly subscription-saturated market, brands that overpromise and underdeliver won’t just lose subscribers – they’ll lose credibility.

The Future of Fast-Food Loyalty Programs

Fast-food loyalty programs are at a crossroads. As competition intensifies, brands are moving beyond traditional discounts and punch cards, leveraging advanced technologies and hyper-personalised incentives to deepen customer engagement. However, the future of these programs will depend on whether they provide real, lasting value – or simply add to the growing fatigue of subscription-based services.

Emerging Innovations: AI, Gamification, and Blockchain

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping how QSRs understand and engage with customers. By analyzing purchasing patterns and behavioural data, AI-driven loyalty programs can offer customised promotions, dynamic pricing, and predictive ordering. For instance, some brands are experimenting with real-time menu suggestions based on individual preferences, driving higher spending and deeper brand affinity.

Gamification is also evolving. Loyalty programs are incorporating augmented reality (AR) and blockchain technology to create more immersive and secure experiences. AR-driven campaigns allow customers to unlock exclusive deals through interactive digital experiences, while blockchain ensures transparent and fraud-proof reward transactions. These innovations move beyond transactional loyalty, aiming to foster a stronger emotional connection between brands and consumers.

Consumer Skepticism and Ethical Hurdles

Despite technological advancements, loyalty programs face growing consumer scepticism. The increasing reliance on data collection and AI-driven personalisation raises privacy concerns, prompting regulators to scrutinise how brands gather, store, and use consumer information. If customers feel they are being manipulated into spending more rather than receiving genuine benefits, backlash could follow.

Subscription-based models, once seen as a predictable revenue stream, are also losing some appeal. A 2024 industry survey found that consumers now manage an average of 5 to 7 active subscriptions, with many actively reducing non-essential commitments. The question for QSRs is whether fast-food subscriptions provide enough tangible value to justify a recurring financial commitment – or whether they will become another short-lived marketing trend.

Striking the Right Balance

The future of fast-food loyalty programs hinges on execution. Brands that focus purely on data-driven engagement without offering meaningful value risk losing customer trust. To succeed, QSRs must ensure that loyalty initiatives feel rewarding rather than obligatory, with clear, flexible benefits that align with consumer expectations.

Transparency in data usage, personalised but non-intrusive incentives, and rewards that genuinely enhance the dining experience will define the next generation of loyalty programs. As the industry evolves, brands that prioritise trust, flexibility, and customer-first innovation will lead – while those that overpromise and underdeliver risk being left behind.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

When Miguel and Mikayla Reyes launched Quesadilla Gorilla in Visalia, California, they weren’t just selling quesadillas – they were tapping into a growing demand for customisation. By letting customers build their meals with fresh ingredients and signature salsas, they transformed a small local shop into a rapidly expanding chain.

Fast food chains are no longer defined by speed alone – choice now drives the industry. Consumers are rejecting fixed menus in favour of meals that fit their diets, tastes, and lifestyles. A 2024 report by Tillster found that one in three quick-service diners skipped a restaurant because it lacked customisation, a jump from 21% the previous year.

Personalisation isn’t just a trend – it’s an expectation. More than half of diners (58%) say they’re more likely to recommend a fast food chain if they had a positive custom-ordering experience. For Quick Serve Restaurants or QSRs, that’s not just about loyalty – it’s about survival.

QSRs are racing to keep up, using technology to turn customisation from a challenge into a competitive advantage. Self-service kiosks, now fixtures in many chains, fuel this shift. Demand is rising fast – 57% of diners want more of them, up from 36% last year. Beyond convenience, kiosks give customers greater control over their meals, making customisation seamless.

But technology alone isn’t enough. A seamless experience matters just as much as the ability to customise. Nearly nine in ten diners (89%) say inconsistency across locations frustrates them, and more than half (57%) will take their business elsewhere because of it. Fast food chains that embrace personalisation but fail to execute it uniformly risk losing the very customers they’re trying to attract.

Image credit: Quesadilla Gorilla

Quesadilla Gorilla is proof that customisation isn’t just a gimmick – it’s a growth strategy. By giving customers complete control over their meals, the California-based chain has built a cult-like following and expanded rapidly. When diners feel ownership over what they’re eating, they don’t just return – they become brand ambassadors.

The Consumer-Driven Shift

Fast food was built on uniformity – the same burger, the same fries, the same experience. But consumers now expect meals that reflect their diets, values, and preferences – and they’re willing to pay for that control.

A recent report found that 72% of fast food customers prefer restaurants with personalised ordering, and a third have ditched a restaurant that lacked it. The message is clear: if QSRs don’t offer customisation, someone else will.

Dietary Needs Are Driving Change

Health-conscious consumers and specialised diets are reshaping fast food. More people are adopting plant-based, keto, and allergen-free options, forcing QSRs to adapt. In the UK, a study found that 34% of Brits follow a flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan diet. McDonald’s responded with its McPlant burger – a fully vegan option that proved so popular it became a permanent menu item.

Gluten-free and allergen-conscious dining is no longer niche – it’s mainstream. In the US, 32 million people have food allergies, and one in ten adults avoids gluten. QSRs that once overlooked these needs are now making them a priority. Chipotle lets customers filter its entire digital menu by allergens and diet preferences, making ordering safer and easier.

Regional Preferences Are Reshaping Menus

Personalisation isn’t a one-size-fits-all trend – it looks different in every market. In Japan, MOS Burger lets customers swap ingredients for vegan, keto, or high-protein options. In India, where 40% of the population is vegetarian, McDonald’s runs separate vegetarian kitchens in select locations to meet demand.

Image credit: Salad Stop!

Customisation in Southeast Asia is shaped by local food culture. In Singapore, SaladStop! thrives on made-to-order salads and grain bowls, catering to a region where 65% of consumers prioritise fresh, healthy ingredients (Statista, 2024). In South Korea, Lotteria’s “Mix Your Own Burger” system lets customers pick everything from the bun to the sauce, tapping into a younger generation that values choice.

Fast Food No Longer Means Fast Decisions

Fast food has evolved from a mass-production model to a made-for-you experience. Consumers expect meals to match their dietary needs and personal values and are willing to pay for that control. Whether it’s plant-based options, high-protein choices, or allergen-free meals, customisation is no longer a perk; it’s the baseline. The brands that keep up are driving higher order values and stronger customer loyalty. Those that fall behind risk becoming irrelevant.

How AI and Technology Are Making It Possible

Technology is reshaping fast food, making personalisation scalable. AI and machine learning are making customisation scalable, helping restaurants tailor meals while streamlining operations. For fast food chains, this isn’t just about convenience – it’s about survival in an era where consumer expectations are shifting faster than ever.

AI-Powered Ordering Systems

Image credit: Wendy’s

Automation is now streamlining drive-thru service. Wendy’s has partnered with Google Cloud to roll out FreshAI, a voice assistant designed to speed up service and reduce errors. Already in 100 locations, the system is set to expand to 600 outlets by 2025. While some diners appreciate the efficiency, others miss the human touch – highlighting the tension between automation and experience in fast food’s tech-driven future.

Digital Kiosks and Personalisation

Self-service kiosks are not just about convenience – they’re becoming personalised digital waiters. AI-driven kiosks now remember past orders, suggest meal pairings, and tailor recommendations based on dietary needs. By reducing friction and speeding up service, these machines are transforming customer interactions – and helping fast food chains increase sales along the way.

Machine Learning for Menu Customisation

The smartest menus now learn from you. Machine learning lets QSRs track past orders, adapt to dietary preferences, and even tweak menus based on ingredient availability. Running low on an item? The system suggests an alternative in real-time. Beyond customer convenience, these AI-driven menus help restaurants reduce waste, streamline inventory, and boost margins.

Operational Efficiency Through AI

AI isn’t just in the front of house—it’s redefining kitchen operations behind the scenes. Predictive analytics help QSRs anticipate demand, adjust staffing, and keep inventory tight. The same technology can even flag equipment issues before they cause breakdowns, cutting costly downtime. The result? Faster service, lower costs, and a more efficient back-end operation.

This shift isn’t just changing how customers order – it’s restructuring the entire industry, from kitchen design to staffing strategies.

Business Impact and Industry Disruption

The push for hyper-personalisation is reshaping how fast food chains operate, forcing them to balance customisation with efficiency. Kitchens once designed for assembly-line efficiency are now adapting to a made-to-order model – one that delivers choice but also adds complexity. While brands that get it right see higher sales and stronger customer loyalty, those that can’t balance personalisation with efficiency risk slowing down service and driving up costs.

Rethinking fast food Kitchens

Fast food kitchens are undergoing a major overhaul to meet the demands of customised ordering. McDonald’s is experimenting with automation at a Texas location, where robots handle grilling and order assembly. Meanwhile, AI-powered kitchen display systems (KDS) are helping restaurants reduce human error and improve efficiency.

Chipotle’s “Chipotlanes” are redefining the drive-thru experience. By separating app-based orders from in-store transactions, these digital lanes reduce congestion and speed up fulfilment. CEO Brian Niccol reports that digital sales reached 37% of total revenue in 2023 – a figure likely to climb as more customers opt for customised meals.

The Business Upside

Customisation isn’t just a consumer preference – it’s also good for business. A study by McKinsey & Company found that brands offering personalised experiences drive 40% more revenue than competitors that stick to traditional menus. In fast food, higher-order values, repeat purchases, and improved brand loyalty are the biggest wins.

Data collection is another major advantage. Every custom order provides insight into consumer preferences, allowing QSRs to fine-tune menu options, predict demand, and minimise food waste. A report by the National Restaurant Association found that smart inventory management driven by AI could reduce waste by up to 15%, saving businesses millions annually.

The Hidden Costs of Personalisation

Despite the upside, the shift toward extreme customisation brings new risks. More complex orders require more ingredients, increased prep time, and a higher likelihood of operational slowdowns. In 2023, Shake Shack’s CFO, Katie Fogertey, noted that over-customisation led to longer wait times, straining kitchens and frustrating customers.

There’s also the cost of technology. AI-powered ordering systems, digital kiosks, and smart kitchen tech require significant upfront investment – something smaller franchises may struggle to afford. According to a 2024 industry analysis by Deloitte, the cost of implementing AI-driven food prep technology can range from $500,000 to over $2 million per location, depending on the scale of automation.

For QSRs, the challenge is clear: how to balance efficiency with personalisation without sacrificing speed or profitability. Some are leaning on AI, others on pre-set customisation limits, but one thing is certain – fast food is no longer just about being fast.

Fast Food’s New Balancing Act: Customisation Versus Efficiency

Fast food chains are under pressure to rethink their entire model as customisation moves from novelty to necessity. The old system of standardised meals is being replaced by flexible menus that cater to individual preferences, but adapting at scale is no easy feat. While personalised ordering can boost sales and improve inventory management, the operational complexities are mounting – forcing even the biggest QSRs to reassess how they function.

Kitchens Built for Speed Are Getting a Makeover

The shift toward customisation is forcing QSRs to rethink not just their menus, but their kitchens. Designed for efficiency and volume, traditional back-of-house operations are now struggling to accommodate a growing demand for personalised meals. Chains that once thrived on uniformity are now experimenting with new layouts, technology, and automation to keep up.

Quick-service chains are automating to stay competitive. McDonald’s is testing a robotics-driven location in Texas, where AI-powered kiosks and automated fry stations are reducing labour costs and speeding up prep times. At the same time, Chipotle is using automation in its kitchens, piloting robotic tortilla chip makers to streamline production without disrupting customisation. As QSRs scale automation, the challenge isn’t just efficiency – it’s integrating technology without sacrificing the personalised experience customers expect.

More Choices, Bigger Profits

Customisation isn’t just about consumer preference – it’s driving higher spending at fast food chains. Research from Deloitte highlights that brands excelling in personalisation see stronger customer engagement and long-term loyalty. Meanwhile, studies on digital ordering trends show that consumers spend more when they can modify their meals, opting for premium ingredients or add-ons. For QSRs, this means a direct link between menu flexibility and increased revenue, making personalisation more than just a marketing tool – it’s a business strategy.

Data is another major driver. Every custom order provides valuable insight into consumer preferences, allowing QSRs to refine menus, optimise ingredient sourcing, and reduce food waste. AI-driven inventory tracking is helping QSRs minimise waste and maximise margins. The National Restaurant Association estimates these systems could save restaurants millions annually by optimising ingredient use.

The Cost of Getting Personal

Offering limitless choices isn’t always good for business. Shake Shack CFO Katie Fogertey warned that an influx of custom orders slowed service and strained kitchen operations, frustrating both customers and staff. More ingredients mean more prep time, higher operational costs, and a greater risk of bottlenecks – issues that can erode the efficiency QSRs rely on.

The shift toward automation comes with a steep price tag. AI-powered kiosks, digital ordering systems, and robotic kitchen assistants require significant upfront investment. A 2024 Deloitte report estimates the cost of implementing AI-driven food prep technology ranges from $500,000 to over $2 million per location – an expense that could widen the gap between industry giants and smaller franchises.

QSRs are now walking a tightrope between customisation and efficiency. Some are doubling down on AI to streamline operations, while others are setting boundaries on how much personalisation they allow. The brands that strike the right balance will define the next era of fast food – one where convenience and choice must work in sync.

The Future of Hyper-Personalised Fast Food

The next wave of fast food will be shaped by technology and consumer demand for hyper-personalization. What was once a novelty is fast becoming the norm, with AI-driven pricing, predictive meal planning, and real-time nutrition tracking set to redefine how QSRs serve their customers.

Dynamic Pricing

Dynamic pricing, long used in airlines and hotels, is now entering fast food. AI-powered pricing models adjust costs in real-time based on demand, location, and even weather. A surge in lunchtime traffic? Expect a slight uptick in menu prices. A slow afternoon? Discounts might appear to draw in customers. The goal isn’t just profit – it’s about balancing kitchen efficiency and customer flow to avoid bottlenecks.

AI-Generated Meal Plans

AI-driven meal planning is changing how customers interact with fast food menus. Using past orders, dietary preferences, and budget constraints, algorithms can now recommend tailored meals in real time. Billionaire Marc Lore, through his company Wonder, is betting on AI-powered meal curation that personalises menus to match individual needs. The result? A shift from one-size-fits-all offerings to menus that adapt to customers – not the other way around.

Personalised Nutrition Tracking

Nutrition-conscious consumers are demanding more than just quick meals – they want food that fits their health goals. fast food chains are tapping into this trend by linking menus to wearable tech and health apps, offering real-time meal recommendations based on calorie needs, macros, or fitness plans. By turning fast food into a data-driven dining experience, QSRs are positioning themselves as allies in personal wellness rather than just a convenient option.

Regulatory and Ethical Considerations

AI-powered personalisation isn’t without controversy. With fast food chains collecting customer data to refine menus and pricing, concerns over privacy and data security are growing. The 2024 exposure of the WildChat dataset, which leaked sensitive AI interactions, highlighted the risks of poor data handling. If QSRs want consumers to embrace AI-driven dining, they must prove their systems are transparent, secure, and not exploiting personal data for profit.

AI-driven menus raise another concern – are they truly serving consumers, or just steering them toward higher-margin meals? Critics warn that AI could prioritise profits over nutrition, subtly pushing customers toward pricier, less healthy choices. Regulators are beginning to scrutinise how food brands deploy AI, with calls for transparency around algorithmic decision-making and whether recommendations serve the diner or the bottom line.

Empowering Consumers in the Age of Personalisation

Fast food is no longer a one-size-fits-all industry. Consumers expect choices that reflect their health goals, ethical beliefs, and personal tastes – shifting from passive diners to active decision-makers. But with more power comes more risk. The industry must find a way to balance innovation with transparency, ensuring that personalisation enhances, rather than exploits, the dining experience.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

A billion people depend on India’s wheat harvests. What happens when the heat rises too fast for crops to survive?

Export bans. Soaring grain prices. A scramble for alternatives. Across Asia and beyond, food systems are under strain as extreme weather makes staple crops increasingly unpredictable. In response, scientists in China have developed drought-resistant rice to protect food security, yet consumer scepticism remains high.

Meanwhile, in the US, biotech giants like Bayer and Syngenta are pushing climate-proof seeds, but supermarket shelves still prominently feature “Non-GMO” labels – proof that consumer hesitation lingers despite scientific advancements.

This paradox defines the future of food security. Climate change is upending agriculture at an unprecedented pace – longer droughts, erratic rainfall, and rising temperatures are cutting into global crop yields. In response, agribusinesses and research institutions are racing to develop climate-resilient crops that can withstand these harsh conditions. The science is advancing rapidly, but will consumers accept it in time?

The science behind genetically engineered crops is well-established, yet scepticism remains deeply entrenched. Public attitudes vary widely: China and India are ramping up biotech adoption to secure food supplies, while Japan and the UK remain resistant, prioritising “natural” and organic labels. Meanwhile, Southeast Asia – a critical agricultural hub – faces a delicate balancing act, weighing the urgency of food security against long-standing cultural reservations about modified crops.

The question now is whether scientific innovation can outpace consumer scepticism. As extreme weather disrupts global food systems, climate-resilient crops could be the key to stabilizing agriculture. But will they gain mainstream acceptance in time, or will regulatory delays and public distrust slow their adoption? The outcome could determine whether the world’s farmers can keep feeding a growing population in an era of climate volatility.

The Climate Crisis Driving Innovation

Climate change is no longer a looming threat – it is already redrawing the global agricultural map. Farmers in some of the world’s most productive regions are contending with crippling droughts, unpredictable monsoons, and heat waves that arrive earlier and last longer. Yields are dropping, and supply chains are fraying. The stakes are high: without immediate adaptation, food security in major economies will be under serious threat within the next two decades.

Science has a solution – but can it scale fast enough? Researchers are developing crops that withstand floods, survive heat waves, and thrive in drought-stricken soil. Yet the challenge isn’t just in the lab. Getting these climate-resilient crops into the hands of farmers – before extreme weather renders existing varieties obsolete – is the real test.

The Data on Climate Impact on Agriculture

The warning signs are already here. In some of the world’s biggest agricultural hubs, extreme weather is slashing yields and reshaping the future of food production.

United States: The US Corn Belt, which supplies nearly a third of global corn exports, is in jeopardy. The USDA warns that by 2050, heat stress could cut corn yields by 30% – and in some areas, losses could reach 44%. California’s almond industry is already feeling the strain, with water shortages forcing growers to abandon thousands of acres of orchards.
Asia: Rice, the staple for more than half the world’s population, is under direct threat. FAO projections show that by 2050, rice yields across Asia could fall by 15% due to rising temperatures and unpredictable monsoons. Thailand and Vietnam – two of the world’s biggest rice exporters – are already struggling with prolonged droughts, shaking global supply chains.
Indonesia and the Philippines: Archipelagic nations like Indonesia and the Philippines aren’t just battling drought – they’re losing farmland to the sea. Salinisation is creeping inland, making traditional rice paddies unviable. Farmers are being forced to pivot to salt-tolerant and flood-resistant varieties, but adaptation is slow.
Singapore: As a nation that imports more than 90% of its food, Singapore is acutely vulnerable to agricultural disruptions. To counter this, it is betting on vertical farms and gene-edited crops as a way to build a more self-sufficient food supply.

The Urgency for Climate-Resilient Crops

As climate extremes intensify, scientists are in a race against time to engineer crops that can survive the chaos. Governments and research institutions are doubling down on drought-proof wheat, flood-resistant rice, and heat-tolerant corn – hoping to keep food supplies stable in an increasingly unpredictable world.

China: In the country’s northern plains, farmland is turning to dust. Desertification is creeping southward, threatening wheat and rice yields in one of the world’s biggest food producers. In response, China is fast-tracking drought-resistant crop trials, hoping to shore up food security before harvests take a major hit.
Indonesia: Rice paddies are drowning. Every year, typhoons and monsoon floods submerge vast swathes of farmland, wiping out crops overnight. Now, the government is betting on submergence-resistant rice – strains designed to survive weeks underwater. If successful, these biotech varieties could become a lifeline for Southeast Asia’s most populous nation.
Singapore: In a city where farmland is scarce, food security is a growing concern. The island nation imports more than 90% of its food, leaving it vulnerable to supply chain shocks. To counter this, Singapore is betting on gene-edited crops and vertical farms, pushing the boundaries of high-tech agriculture. The government’s 30 by 30 initiative is a bold attempt to produce 30% of the country’s nutritional needs locally by 2030 – a challenge for a nation where skyscrapers vastly outnumber fields.

The science is clear – climate change is moving faster than agriculture can adapt. Farmers are already struggling to keep up. The real battle now isn’t just about innovation – it’s about trust. Will policymakers and the public embrace the science in time to prevent a global food crisis?

The Science Behind Climate-Resilient Crops

The fight to secure the future of food is happening in laboratories as much as in fields. As rising temperatures, droughts, and erratic weather threaten global harvests, scientists are engineering crops that can survive extreme conditions. But not all solutions are the same – some rely on age-old techniques, while others push the boundaries of genetic science.

GMOs vs. CRISPR vs. Selective Breeding: What’s the Difference?

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): This approach involves inserting foreign DNA into a plant’s genome to introduce traits that wouldn’t naturally occur. The most well-known example is Bt corn, which carries a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis – allowing it to produce a protein lethal to insect pests but harmless to humans. Despite widespread use, GMOs remain a flashpoint of debate, with critics raising concerns over long-term ecological impact and corporate control of seeds.
CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats): A revolution in genetic science, CRISPR offers a scalpel-like precision compared to the blunt instrument of traditional GMOs. Instead of inserting foreign DNA, this gene-editing tool allows scientists to modify a plant’s own genes, enhancing traits like drought resistance or disease immunity without introducing external genetic material. Because CRISPR mimics natural mutations, regulators in countries like Japan and the UK are moving to fast-track approvals, arguing it is closer to selective breeding than traditional genetic modification.
Selective Breeding: The oldest agricultural tool in human history, selective breeding has shaped the crops we eat today – from sweeter apples to drought-hardy wheat. Farmers crossbreed plants with favourable traits over multiple generations, slowly refining resilience, flavour, and yield. But in a world where climate change is accelerating, this slow, incremental process may no longer be enough. Unlike CRISPR or GMOs, selective breeding is constrained by what exists in nature, limiting how quickly crops can adapt to rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns.

Golden Rice: A Case Study in Asia

A bowl of rice can mean the difference between sight and blindness. In parts of Asia, where rice is a staple but diets lack essential nutrients, millions of children suffer from vitamin A deficiency (VAD), a condition that can cause blindness and even death. Enter Golden Rice – a genetically engineered grain designed to deliver life-saving nutrients to those who need them most. But despite its promise, this crop has spent more time in policy debates than in the hands of farmers.

In the 1990s, scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer set out to solve a deadly problem – how to infuse rice, the primary food source for billions, with a nutrient that could save lives. Their solution: Golden Rice, a genetically modified variety engineered to produce beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A. Its distinctive golden hue isn’t just for show – it’s a sign that the grain carries the potential to prevent blindness and child mortality across Asia.

But Golden Rice’s journey from lab to field has been anything but smooth. Activists have torched test plots, anti-GMO campaigns have labelled it “Frankenfood,” and bureaucratic red tape has stalled its approval for years. While scientists hail it as a game-changer for nutrition, critics argue that it opens the door to greater corporate control of the food system and unknown environmental risks. The question remains: is the world ready to accept a genetically engineered solution to malnutrition?

After two decades of political battles and scientific trials, Golden Rice has finally reached farmers’ fields. In 2021, the Philippines became the first country to approve it for commercial cultivation, marking a milestone in the fight against malnutrition. Other nations, including Bangladesh and India, are still weighing its adoption. But even with regulatory green lights, the biggest hurdle remains: Will consumers embrace it?

Science alone won’t decide the fate of Golden Rice – trust will. Dr. Adrian Dubock, one of its leading advocates, believes acceptance hinges on education and transparency. “The successful deployment of biofortified crops like Golden Rice depends not only on scientific innovation but also on building public trust,” he says. That trust, however, has been decades in the making – and is still far from guaranteed.

The Global Divide on Consumer Trust

A technology that can feed the world is also one of the most divisive. While some countries champion biotechnology as the future of farming, others reject it outright, driven by deep-seated cultural beliefs, political decisions, and misinformation. The result? A fractured global food system, where scientific breakthroughs face vastly different levels of consumer acceptance – shaping everything from government policy to supermarket shelves.

Consumer Perception Across Key Markets

United States: Once a battleground for GMO opposition, the US is slowly shifting toward acceptance. A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that 27% of Americans believe GMOs are safe to eat, while 38% consider them unsafe. Yet, old fears die hard. Supermarket aisles are still packed with “non-GMO” labels, even on foods that have no genetically modified equivalent – more a marketing strategy than a scientific necessity.
China: The government wants biotech crops, but the people remain unconvinced. A 2023 China Agricultural University study found that 55% of Chinese consumers still oppose eating GM foods, citing safety concerns and deep distrust of corporate-controlled agriculture. Yet Beijing isn’t waiting for public sentiment to change. By classifying CRISPR-edited crops as “precision breeding” rather than genetic modification, regulators are pushing forward with gene-edited agriculture – betting that branding will make all the difference.
India: Farmers embrace GM crops. Consumers reject them. The divide couldn’t be clearer. While Indian farmers widely cultivate pest-resistant genetically modified cotton, a Statista survey found that 45% of Indian consumers actively avoid GM foods, citing fears of health risks. Despite this, the government is inching toward approving GM mustard – a decision that has sparked protests and political infighting.
Japan and the United Kingdom: Few places are more resistant to biotech foods than Japan and the UK. In Japan, over 70% of consumers favour “natural” labels, and government restrictions on GMOs remain among the toughest in the world. The UK, meanwhile, has begun rethinking its stance post-Brexit, with officials debating whether gene-edited crops should be regulated separately from traditional GMOs. But consumer sentiment hasn’t caught up to policy changes – demand for organic and non-GMO options remains strong.
Southeast Asia: A region caught between food security concerns and biotech scepticism. The Philippines made history as the first nation to approve Golden Rice, but protests from anti-GMO activists have slowed its rollout. In Indonesia and Thailand, gene-edited crops are being tested, but public scepticism keeps governments cautious. Meanwhile, Singapore – a leader in agritech – is moving ahead with lab-grown and gene-edited foods, though consumer acceptance remains uncertain.

The Role of Misinformation in Fueling Skepticism

Fear spreads faster than facts. Nowhere is this more evident than in the debate over genetically modified foods. Social media has supercharged public scepticism, fueling viral claims about “Frankenfoods” and exaggerated health risks. A recent study in Nature Food found that misinformation about GMOs spreads six times faster than science-backed evidence – giving fear an outsized influence on consumer perception.

“The future of billions of people literally depends on changing the narrative about how we view genetically modified food and genetic technologies,” says Professor Ian Godwin, a plant geneticist at the University of Queensland. “Misinformation has distorted public perception, and we need to refocus the conversation on science, safety, and the role of biotechnology in food security.”

The real challenge isn’t just growing climate-resilient crops – it’s convincing consumers to accept them. With climate change straining global food supplies, the gap between scientific innovation and public perception has never been wider. If biotech crops are to help feed the future, winning public trust may matter just as much as the next agricultural breakthrough.

The Industry’s Strategy to Win Over Consumers

Science is on one side. Public opinion is on the other. Despite overwhelming evidence that genetically engineered crops are safe, scepticism remains one of the biggest hurdles to widespread acceptance. In response, the biotech industry is rethinking its messaging – rebranding GMOs, influencing regulations, and tapping into behavioural science to shift consumer sentiment.

How Food Companies Are Rebranding GMOs and Gene-Editing

The term “GMO” has become a branding disaster. Decades of fear-based messaging have turned it into a red flag for many consumers, prompting biotech firms to distance themselves from the label altogether. Now, companies and policymakers are rewriting the language of genetic innovation – betting that new terminology will reshape public perception.

The new labels sound less like science and more like sustainability slogans:

“Precision Breeding” – the UK’s preferred term, positioning gene-edited crops as an extension of traditional breeding rather than genetic modification.
“Climate-Smart Crops” – a phrase gaining traction, emphasising the role of biotech in reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint.
“Next-Gen Agriculture” – used by industry giants like Bayer and Syngenta to make gene editing sound more futuristic and consumer-friendly.

But this isn’t just a marketing play – it’s a regulatory strategy. In countries like China and the UK, policymakers are reclassifying CRISPR-edited crops as something separate from GMOs, making them easier to approve and less likely to spark consumer backlash. The distinction matters: if gene editing is seen as “breeding” rather than “modification,” it faces fewer restrictions – and far less public scrutiny.

Corporate Investments in Gene-Edited Foods

The race to secure climate-resilient crops isn’t just happening in labs – it’s now a boardroom priority. Major food corporations are pouring millions into biotech investments, betting that gene-edited foods will protect their supply chains from climate shocks and shifting consumer demands.

Nestlé is backing CRISPR-edited coffee beans that can survive rising temperatures without losing flavour or yield – an urgent investment as climate change threatens global coffee production.
Unilever has teamed up with agritech firms to develop gene-edited oilseed crops, positioning gene-editing as a tool to make plant-based foods more sustainable.
PepsiCo is investing in drought-resistant potato strains, aiming to reduce the environmental footprint of its global snack empire.

These corporate bets aren’t just about innovation – they’re about survival. As extreme weather upends agriculture, food giants are moving to insulate their supply chains before climate disruption hits their bottom line.

Can Branding Change the Narrative?

Rebranding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can influence public perception, but it doesn’t alter the underlying realities. Behavioural science indicates that consumer trust is built through education and transparency, not just terminology shifts. A 2022 study by the European Food Safety Authority found that consumers were 40% more likely to accept gene-edited foods when provided with clear, science-backed explanations of their benefits.

Dr. Kevin Folta, a plant scientist at the University of Florida, emphasises the importance of clear communication: “Stop using ‘GMO.’ It is imprecise. Everything not arising as a clone is genetically modified from previous forms.”

The future of food isn’t just about innovation – it’s about persuasion. As climate pressures mount and global food demand rises, gaining consumer trust is essential for genetic breakthroughs to reach their full potential. The stakes extend beyond corporate profits; they encompass the future of global food security.

The Future of Climate-Resilient Crops

The future of food is being rewritten – one policy, one investment, and one breakthrough at a time. As climate change threatens global food systems, governments are redrawing the regulatory landscape for genetically modified and gene-edited crops. Some nations are fast-tracking approvals to ensure food security, while others remain trapped in political and public pushback. Meanwhile, agritech startups are seeing an influx of capital, and carbon markets are emerging as unexpected drivers of sustainable agriculture. The question is no longer if biotech crops will play a role in feeding the future, but how quickly they will be embraced.

How Governments Are Handling Biotech Crops

China is breaking its long-standing GMO hesitation – and food security is the reason. In late 2023, the government greenlit commercial planting of gene-edited soybeans and corn, a major policy shift for the world’s largest food importer. Officials have positioned the move as an economic and strategic necessity – designed to cut reliance on foreign seed technology, boost domestic yields, and protect China’s food supply from worsening climate volatility.

India remains deeply divided on biotech crops. While farmers champion genetic innovation as key to improving yields, environmental groups continue to push back against its expansion. The Supreme Court is now weighing a landmark case on GM mustard, a ruling that could set the tone for future biotech approvals. Farmers argue that modified crops are critical to boosting productivity, but critics warn of corporate seed monopolies and environmental fallout. Despite the deadlock, India has already embraced GM cotton – the question is whether food crops will be next.

Post-Brexit, the UK is embracing biotech in a way the EU never did. In 2023, lawmakers fast-tracked the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, slashing EU-era restrictions and making Britain a testing ground for gene-edited agriculture. Officials argue that CRISPR crops should not be lumped together with traditional GMOs – a move designed to attract investment in gene-edited wheat, oilseeds, and climate-resilient fruits. With fewer regulatory hurdles, the UK is positioning itself as a biotech leader in Europe.

Southeast Asia is turning to biotech and urban farming to secure its food future. Singapore is leading the charge with its “30 by 30” initiative, investing heavily in vertical farming and gene-edited crops to meet 30% of its nutritional needs domestically by 2030. Indonesia, meanwhile, is channelling capital into agritech startups focused on climate-resilient crops – but policymakers remain wary of fully legalising GMOs. The region’s approach reflects a balancing act between food security and public caution.

Investment Trends in Biotech Agriculture

Biotech investment is no longer a niche bet – it’s a global race. As climate volatility disrupts food production, investors are pouring capital into agricultural biotechnology, betting that genetic innovation will be the key to long-term food security. The global agri-biotech market is projected to hit $104 billion by 2030, fueled by demand for climate-smart crops, precision breeding, and gene-editing breakthroughs.

Venture capital is chasing the next frontier in food tech: gene-editing. Unlike traditional GMOs, CRISPR-edited crops face fewer regulatory hurdles, making them a safer bet for investors. Startups like Tropic Biosciences, Pairwise, and Inari Agriculture have secured major funding rounds, developing crops such as fungus-resistant coffee and nutrient-enhanced leafy greens. The appeal is clear – gene-edited foods promise climate resilience without the regulatory baggage of older biotech crops.

The Role of Carbon Markets in Driving Adoption

The future of biotech crops could be shaped by an unlikely force: carbon markets. Indonesia and Vietnam are rolling out carbon credit initiatives that reward farmers for adopting regenerative agriculture practices – including biotech crops that boost soil health and reduce chemical inputs. If these incentives take off, farmers could be financially rewarded for planting gene-edited crops that sequester carbon, use less water, or cut fertilizer reliance. This shift could turn biotech adoption into not just an environmental decision, but an economic one.

Biotech crops are no longer just a scientific breakthrough – they are becoming an economic and political necessity. The intersection of government policy, venture capital, and sustainability incentives is redefining agriculture, with gene-edited crops at the centre of the debate. While regulatory fights continue, one thing is clear: the success of biotech crops won’t be decided in labs – it will be decided by farmers, investors, and consumers.

The Race Between Innovation and Acceptance

Climate change isn’t waiting for regulatory approvals or consumer sentiment to catch up. Extreme weather is already reducing global crop yields, disrupting supply chains, and putting food security at risk in regions dependent on staple crops like wheat, rice, and corn. Scientists are engineering solutions, policymakers are reshaping regulations, and agribusinesses are scaling up climate-resilient crops – but none of it matters if regulatory roadblocks and consumer hesitancy delay adoption.

Some nations are moving forward. China and the UK are accelerating approvals for gene-edited crops, while India and Southeast Asia remain caught between the urgency of food security and deep-rooted public hesitation. The industry has rebranded, investors are funnelling billions into biotech, and breakthroughs have produced crops that can withstand extreme heat, require less water, and resist disease.

For climate-resilient crops to reach their potential, three critical shifts must take place:

Public education must dismantle outdated GMO fears – moving beyond decades-old misconceptions and clearly explaining how modern gene editing differs.
Companies must change how they communicate biotech benefits – focusing on sustainability and nutrition rather than technical jargon that alienates consumers.
Regulators must find a balance between public trust and innovation – streamlining approvals without ignoring consumer concerns.

The future of food security won’t be decided in labs – it will be decided in grocery aisles, political chambers, and consumer conversations. The race between scientific progress and public acceptance will determine whether climate-resilient crops become a global necessity – or a solution that came too late.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

In Brazil’s Cerrado Mineiro region, coffee farmer Marcelo Montanari is redefining what it means to grow coffee in a changing climate. By interplanting native trees with his coffee crops and reducing chemical use, he’s not just nurturing healthier soil – he’s building resilience against the unpredictable swings of climate change. This shift hasn’t gone unnoticed. Global coffee giants like Nespresso and Illycaffè are seeking partnerships with farmers like Montanari as they shift toward sustainable sourcing.

Once confined to niche eco-farms, regenerative agriculture has now caught the attention of food industry leaders such as General Mills, Nestlé, and Unilever. Their growing investments in soil health aren’t solely about boosting crop yields; they’re responding to a more powerful catalyst – consumers demanding tangible proof of sustainability.

The familiar green labels of the past – “organic,” “non-GMO” – no longer carry the same influence. Today’s consumers, especially Gen Z and millennials, are asking sharper questions: What is this product’s long-term environmental impact? Where does it come from? Brands unable to provide clear answers risk more than lost sales; they risk fading into irrelevance in a market driven by sustainability-conscious buyers.

The Science Behind Regenerative Farming

Regenerative farming is more than just the latest sustainability trend – it represents a shift in thinking about how food is grown. Unlike conventional farming, which prioritises high yields often at the expense of soil health, regenerative practices aim to restore the land. The goal is simple: rebuild soil vitality, enhance biodiversity, and create farms that capture and store carbon.

At the heart of regenerative farming are a few key principles:

Reducing Soil Disturbance: Minimal tilling preserves soil structure, improves moisture retention, and supports thriving microbial ecosystems.
Crop Diversity: Rotating a variety of crops maintains nutrient balance, disrupts pest cycles, and reduces dependency on chemical inputs.
Cover Crops: Plants like clover and radish protect against erosion, enrich the soil, and prevent nutrient depletion between growing seasons.
Integrating Livestock: Managed grazing mirrors natural ecosystems, with livestock contributing to soil fertility as part of the regenerative cycle.

The Carbon Sequestration Question

Perhaps the most ambitious claim of regenerative agriculture is its potential to combat climate change by capturing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil. Some studies suggest it could sequester up to 10 billion tons of CO₂ annually – comparable to emissions from the global transportation sector. However, this promise remains under scrutiny. Critics point out that carbon capture rates can vary widely depending on climate conditions, soil types, and farming practices.

How Buying Habits Are Reshaping Farming

A decade ago, “organic” was the gold standard for eco-conscious consumers. Today, its appeal is fading. While organic farming limits synthetic chemicals, it doesn’t always enhance soil health or biodiversity. Regenerative practices go further – restoring ecosystems, capturing carbon, and rebuilding soil fertility.

Consumer awareness is surging. According to The Hartman Group, 40% of US consumers now recognise “regenerative agriculture,” a sharp increase from just 10% five years ago. A 2024 NYU Stern survey found that 65% of values-driven shoppers are willing to pay a premium for products grown using regenerative methods. But this shift isn’t just about spending power – it’s about cultural influence.

Gen Z and millennials are redefining corporate accountability. A single viral TikTok can expose a brand’s empty sustainability claims in hours. For example, Oatly faced backlash after consumers highlighted an investor’s ties to deforestation.

Today, consumers demand more than green labels – they want proof. QR codes on packaging trace sourcing origins, while certifications like Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) and Land to Market provide independent verification. Food influencers dissect supply chains for millions of followers, making greenwashing increasingly difficult.

The economic benefits are clear. A study by the Soil Health Institute found that US farmers experienced a 78% increase in per-acre profits for corn and a 29% boost for soybeans after adopting regenerative methods, thanks to reduced input costs.

Corporations are responding with significant investments:

General Mills: Targeting 1 million acres under regenerative practices by 2030 to improve soil health for products like Cheerios.
Nestlé: Committing over $1 billion globally to regenerative agriculture programs.
Danone: Expanding regenerative dairy initiatives in the US and Europe to lower methane emissions.

Regenerative products are entering the mainstream. Whole Foods has introduced a dedicated “Regenerative Agriculture” section, while retailers like Walmart and Kroger are pushing suppliers to adopt regenerative practices. The message is clear: adapt or risk being left behind.

The Corporate Pivot to Regenerative Farming

Regenerative agriculture has entered the mainstream, but corporate commitments vary significantly. Some brands are making substantial investments, while others rely on broad pledges with minimal follow-through.

General Mills: Invested $2 million in regenerative wheat pilot programs, incorporating the results into products like Cheerios.
Nestlé: Partnering with over 500,000 farmers worldwide, focusing on soil restoration efforts in Vietnam, Brazil, and Côte d’Ivoire.
Unilever: Committed to sourcing 100% of its agricultural ingredients from regenerative farms by 2030, though specific strategies remain vague.

Critics argue that many corporate sustainability initiatives prioritise optics over impact. While bold acreage targets make headlines, the absence of clear metrics raises questions: How much carbon will actually be sequestered? What verification systems are in place to track soil health improvements?

Companies are eager to showcase their regenerative sourcing efforts, but often fall short of providing what farmers need most: financial security. Without incentives such as premium pricing or long-term contracts, the financial burden of transitioning to regenerative practices – which requires significant upfront investment – rests heavily on farmers.

Regenerative agriculture is more than a marketing trend; it requires a fundamental overhaul of supply chains. For corporations to make a genuine impact, they must move beyond PR-driven commitments and invest in initiatives with measurable, transparent outcomes.

Tech in Regenerative Agriculture

While the principles of regenerative agriculture are rooted in traditional land stewardship – such as crop rotation, reduced tillage, and soil health management – the future of this movement may depend on technology. Digital tools, artificial intelligence (AI), and blockchain are reshaping how farmers manage their fields, how companies verify sustainability claims, and how consumers trace the origins of their food.

The Challenge of Measurement

One of the biggest hurdles in regenerative agriculture is measuring impact. Unlike organic certification, which relies on specific criteria like pesticide restrictions, regenerative agriculture focuses on outcomes such as soil health, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity. This is where AI becomes invaluable.

Companies like Indigo Agriculture are leveraging AI-powered platforms to monitor soil carbon levels with remarkable precision. By analyzing satellite imagery, soil samples, and weather data, AI models can track changes in soil organic matter, moisture retention, and microbial activity. This not only helps farmers optimise regenerative practices but also provides verifiable data for companies striving to meet sustainability goals.

For instance, Indigo’s Terraton Initiative claims to have sequestered over 20 million metric tons of CO₂ through regenerative projects, with AI-driven models validating these outcomes. As corporate climate commitments face increasing scrutiny, this technology plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability.

Blockchain and the Future of Food Transparency

Beyond measuring soil health, blockchain technology is emerging as a powerful tool for supply chain traceability. In regenerative agriculture, where verifiable proof of sustainability is essential, blockchain’s ability to create tamper-proof digital records is invaluable.

Consider Provenance, a UK-based tech company that uses blockchain to authenticate sustainability claims for food brands. Through QR codes on packaging, consumers can trace products back to specific farms, accessing data on soil health practices, carbon footprints, and even farmer testimonials. This level of transparency has moved beyond marketing – it’s becoming a consumer expectation.

The Intersection of Tradition and Technology

While regenerative agriculture often conjures images of pastoral landscapes and time-honoured farming practices, its future is increasingly tied to data science. AI and blockchain won’t replace traditional methods, but they will be critical tools for scaling them. In an era where “trust but verify” defines consumer-brand relationships, technology is no longer optional – it’s the foundation of the regenerative movement.

Case Study: Nestlé’s Regenerative Coffee Farming in Vietnam

Image credit: Global Coffee Report

In Vietnam’s Central Highlands, coffee farms sprawl across the landscape, anchoring one of the country’s key exports. Yet beneath this agricultural success lies an ecosystem under strain – soil degradation, water scarcity, and the escalating impacts of climate change are taking a toll. Nestlé’s Nescafé Plan 2030, a billion-dollar initiative, aims to address these challenges through regenerative farming practices.

The Problem: Coffee Under Pressure

As the world’s second-largest coffee producer, Vietnam has leaned heavily on intensive farming to meet global demand. This approach, marked by chemical fertilizers and monocropping, has eroded soil health, reduced yields, and strained water resources, jeopardising the long-term sustainability of coffee cultivation.

The Approach: Scaling Regenerative Practices

Since its launch in 2010 and expansion under the Nescafé Plan 2030, Nestlé has partnered with over 100,000 Vietnamese farmers to implement practices aimed at restoring soil health and enhancing climate resilience:

Agroforestry: Intercropping coffee with shade trees to regulate soil temperature, conserve moisture, and support biodiversity.
Cover Cropping: Using legumes and grasses to improve soil fertility, reduce erosion, and naturally replenish nitrogen.
Precision Irrigation: Introducing water-efficient techniques, cutting usage by up to 20% on pilot farms.
Organic Fertilizers: Transitioning from synthetic inputs to compost and biofertilizers to boost soil microbiome health.

The Impact: Promising but Limited

Nestlé’s internal assessments and independent evaluations report notable gains:

Carbon Reduction: Up to a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of coffee.
Water Efficiency: A 30% improvement in soil moisture retention, vital in drought-prone areas.
Biodiversity: A 50% rise in beneficial insect populations, reducing reliance on pesticides.

Beyond the Farm: Economic Shifts

Farmers involved in the program have seen yield increases of 15–20% and lower costs for fertilizers and irrigation. Nestlé has also introduced training in financial literacy and farm management, encouraging data-driven decision-making.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite these results, questions linger. Critics argue that corporate-led regenerative projects often overpromise and underdeliver. Concerns include the scalability of these practices, the potential for increased farmer dependency on corporate programs, and the lack of standardised metrics to evaluate success across different regions.

A Model for the Future?

Nestlé’s regenerative coffee program in Vietnam highlights both the potential and limitations of corporate-driven sustainability initiatives. Whether this model can be replicated at scale remains uncertain. As climate risks intensify, regenerative agriculture may shift from an experimental approach to a necessity – but its true impact will depend on measurable outcomes.

Will Regenerative Farming Become the Norm?

For regenerative agriculture to move from the margins to the mainstream, government policy will be pivotal. Some nations are already taking steps:

United States: The Farm Bill now includes provisions supporting regenerative practices.
European Union: Subsidies are in place to encourage carbon sequestration farming methods.
India: Pilot programs aim to improve soil fertility and combat desertification.

Yet, regulatory frameworks remain inconsistent. Without standardised definitions and third-party oversight, there’s a risk that “regenerative” could become just another marketing buzzword.

Retailers & Restaurants Drive the Shift

Beyond government action, major retailers and restaurant chains are shaping the future of farming. Companies like Whole Foods, Walmart, and McDonald’s are integrating regenerative sourcing into their procurement strategies. The transformation is underway – the challenge now is how quickly and effectively it scales.

The New Farming Economy

Regenerative agriculture isn’t just changing how we farm; it’s reshaping the agricultural economy. Over the next decade, the divide will grow between companies that embrace meaningful change and those that rely on superficial greenwashing.

The Winners: Farmers and Brands Leading the Transition

Farmers who adopt regenerative practices early stand to gain the most. Studies show these methods reduce costs for fertilizers, pesticides, and water while boosting yields and improving soil health. Early adopters can secure premium contracts with brands eager to showcase sustainability leadership. Companies like Patagonia Provisions and General Mills are offering financial incentives and long-term partnerships to farmers committed to regenerative methods.

Retailers are also capitalising on this shift. Whole Foods has launched dedicated regenerative product lines, while chains like Chipotle are expanding their commitment to sustainably sourced ingredients. Investors are following suit, with climate-focused venture capital funds backing regenerative food startups in response to growing consumer demand.

The Losers: Brands That Fail to Adapt

Not all companies will keep pace. The food industry has a history of sustainability promises that fell flat. Coca-Cola, for example, pledged to become “water neutral” by 2020 but quietly abandoned the goal when it proved unattainable. Consumers and watchdog groups are increasingly scrutinizing such claims, and companies that rely on cosmetic changes risk reputational damage and lost market share.

Industries tied to traditional, extractive farming practices – like fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers – also face challenges. As demand for synthetic inputs declines, these companies will need to pivot toward sustainable solutions or risk obsolescence.

The Big Question: Will Regenerative Agriculture Be Mandated?

Governments are already experimenting with mandates related to carbon sequestration. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) includes financial incentives for soil regeneration, while California’s Healthy Soils Program offers grants for carbon-capturing practices. If these models expand globally, companies that fail to adapt could face financial penalties, carbon taxes, or restricted market access.

The financial sector is also taking note. Banks and insurers are beginning to assess soil health as part of lending and risk evaluations. Poor soil management could soon translate into higher borrowing costs or lower land valuations.

The Road Ahead

Regenerative farming won’t become the norm overnight. The shift requires systemic changes in agriculture, business, and policy. But those who adapt – whether they are farmers, corporations, or governments – will be better positioned in the evolving food economy.

The future of food won’t be decided in boardrooms alone. It will be shaped by the choices consumers make every day. The question isn’t whether regenerative agriculture will take hold – it’s whether companies can keep up.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Food and beverage giants are scrambling to keep up with shifting consumer demands. Shoppers want healthier ingredients, fair prices – not smaller portions – and full transparency on what they’re buying. With inflation squeezing budgets and a growing backlash against shrinkflation, companies are under pressure to rethink everything from product sizes to formulations or risk losing consumer trust.

PepsiCo’s Q4 2024 numbers tell the story: net revenue dipped 0.2%, with its Frito-Lay (-3%), Quaker Foods (-6%), and beverage (-3%) segments taking hits. In response, the company is pushing portion control and value packs – smaller products positioned as both health-friendly and cost-effective. CEO Ramon Laguarta calls it a ‘highly strategic’ move, but consumers see it differently: is this genuine innovation or just shrinkflation in disguise?

It’s a paradox: consumers want affordability but won’t tolerate shrinkflation. In the US and UK, outrage over downsized products is growing, with brands accused of sneaky pricing tactics. But in Southeast Asia, smaller portions aren’t a scandal – they’re a selling point. Brands that market ‘value packs’ instead of just shrinking products are finding success in price-sensitive markets.

With health concerns, inflation, and shifting regional preferences reshaping consumer priorities, food and beverage brands are in a race to adapt before their loyal customers disappear.

The Health-First Consumer Is Reshaping the Industry

Health-conscious consumers are forcing brands to rethink ingredients, reformulate products, and move away from ultra-processed foods. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this shift, with shoppers scrutinising sugar content, artificial additives, and seed oils more than ever.

A 2024 survey by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) found that 79% of American consumers consider food processing levels when making purchases – up from 66% in 2020. In the UK, supermarkets are cutting back on promotions for high-fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) products in response to new regulations. Meanwhile, social media scrutiny has exploded, with viral posts slamming seed oils, artificial dyes, and hidden sugars in processed snacks. Food giants have no choice but to adapt – or lose market share.

A Regional Divide in Health Trends

While Western markets are turning against ultra-processed foods, the trend looks different in Southeast Asia. Singapore is leading the charge with government-backed initiatives promoting healthier eating. The Healthier Choice Symbol program and sugar taxes are pushing brands to reformulate products to meet stricter national health standards.

Elsewhere in the region, the health movement is less clear-cut. In Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, demand for functional foods is rising, especially among the urban middle class. But price still rules – health-conscious products must stay affordable. Instead of ditching processed foods, many consumers are opting for fortified options like probiotic dairy or ‘better-for-you’ snacks.

How Food Giants Are Reformulating Products

To keep up, major brands are investing in health-focused innovation. PepsiCo’s $1.2 billion acquisition of Siete Foods – known for grain-free, gluten-free snacks – signals a push into the clean-label movement. Nestlé is betting big on plant-based proteins and dairy alternatives, doubling down on the shift toward natural and functional foods.

As consumer priorities shift, brands are walking a tightrope – balancing taste, affordability, and the rising demand for transparency. The industry is changing fast, and companies that fail to adapt risk becoming irrelevant.

The Inflation Dilemma and the Shrinkflation Backlash

As inflation squeezes household budgets, food and beverage brands are making tough pricing decisions. Some have raised prices outright, while others have turned to shrinkflation – reducing portion sizes while keeping prices the same. But consumers aren’t fooled, and backlash is growing.

A McKinsey report found that over 60% of global consumers now track product sizes and pricing changes. Social media has amplified the frustration, with brands like Cadbury and PepsiCo called out for reducing product weight while keeping prices steady. Toblerone even faced outrage for widening the gaps between its signature chocolate peaks – seen as a sneaky price hike.

The Shrinkflation Paradox

Brands say shrinkflation is necessary to offset rising costs, especially as ingredient prices fluctuate. But the strategy is a double-edged sword:”

Companies shrink portions to protect profit margins without raising retail prices.
Consumers notice – and they aren’t happy, seeing it as a hidden price hike.
Governments are stepping in. France, India, and Malaysia are calling for clearer product labelling to curb deceptive packaging.

In the UK, regulators are pressuring brands to disclose when product sizes shrink. In the US, consumer complaints are mounting, prompting retailers like Walmart to push back against suppliers reducing portion sizes.

A Different Response in Southeast Asia

While Western consumers reject shrinkflation outright, Southeast Asia takes a more practical approach. Price is the priority, and many shoppers accept smaller portions – if they come in value packs or multipack bundles. Instead of quietly shrinking products, brands in the region market smaller portions as cost-saving options.

This strategy fits local preferences. In Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, single-serve and ‘on-the-go’ formats are booming, especially among younger consumers looking for affordable convenience. Nestlé and Mondelez have responded with mini packs of popular snacks, marketing them as budget-friendly rather than sneaky price hikes.

Turning Shrinkflation Into a Marketing Strategy

To counter backlash, some brands are spinning shrinkflation as a health-conscious choice. PepsiCo markets its smaller snack packs as ‘portion control’ options, framing them as a wellness move rather than a cost-cutting tactic. Coca-Cola’s mini-cans follow the same playbook, targeting health-conscious consumers instead of budget-conscious ones.

With inflation squeezing both companies and consumers, the pricing battle is far from over. Whether through transparency, portion control, or government intervention, food brands must strike a balance between affordability and trust – or risk losing loyalty.

The Rise of Portion Control as a Market Strategy

Portion control is no longer just a diet trend – it’s now a core strategy for food and beverage brands adapting to shifting health and economic pressures. Once a niche tactic for calorie-conscious consumers, it has gone mainstream, fueled by rising obesity concerns and the growing influence of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs like Ozempic

A Morgan Stanley report estimates that GLP-1 drugs could cut US calorie consumption by up to 10% in the coming years, as users eat less and prefer smaller portions. Food brands are already adapting, rolling out smaller servings, reformulated products, and snack-size options to match changing eating habits.

Regional Differences in Portion Control

Portion control is a global trend, but how it’s marketed differs by region:

In the US and UK, brands are positioning smaller portions as a tool for calorie management and weight control. Products like Coca-Cola’s 7.5-ounce mini-cans and Mondelez’s reduced-size snack packs cater to consumers who are actively trying to reduce sugar and calorie intake.
In Southeast Asia, portion control is about value, not dieting. Budget-conscious consumers in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam prefer multipacks and individually wrapped servings for controlled spending and convenience. Nestlé and Unilever have leaned into this, marketing smaller products as cost-effective solutions, especially in cities where disposable income is tight.

PepsiCo’s Portion Control Playbook

PepsiCo is leading the charge on portion control. With sales slipping across its Frito-Lay, Quaker Foods, and beverage segments, the company has doubled down on single-serve and multipack options, marketing them as both healthier and budget-friendly.

CEO Ramon Laguarta calls portion control a long-term strategy, not just a response to economic pressures. By rolling out smaller Lay’s chip bags, Gatorade bottles, and Quaker oat packs, PepsiCo hopes to keep customers loyal while adjusting to changing eating habits.

Portion control is no longer just a diet trend – it’s now a core business strategy. Whether sold as a health-conscious move or a cost-saving measure, it’s here to stay. The shift is reshaping how food brands market and package products in an age of rising health awareness and economic caution.

Southeast Asia’s Unique Consumer Trends and Responses

In the West, portion control is about calories. In Southeast Asia, it’s about cost. Price sensitivity still dominates, but demand for healthier, premium products is rising. That leaves brands walking a fine line – balancing affordability for the mass market with high-quality options for urban consumers willing to pay more.

A Dual Consumer Base: Price-Conscious vs. Health-Focused

In Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, affordability still drives purchases, with consumers favouring cost-effective, single-serve options over bulk buys. But a rising middle class and exposure to global health trends are boosting demand for fortified foods, local superfoods, and functional drinks.

In Singapore, where consumer preferences lean heavily toward health-conscious choices, government initiatives are further shaping the industry. The city-state’s Nutri-Grade labelling system, which categorises beverages based on sugar and saturated fat content, has pushed brands to reformulate drinks to avoid lower-grade ratings. According to Nielsen’s Southeast Asia Consumer Trends Report, demand for low-sugar and naturally sweetened beverages has surged in urban centres, reflecting a broader shift toward mindful consumption.

A Growing Preference for Local and Natural Ingredients

While Western markets focus on plant-based and protein-enriched foods, Southeast Asian consumers favour traditional, natural ingredients. Products with pandan, coconut sugar, turmeric, and herbal infusions are gaining ground, seen as both functional and culturally familiar.

Brands are taking note and adjusting their portfolios:

Nestlé has expanded its fortified dairy and cereal lines, adding local flavours to appeal to Southeast Asian tastes.
Unilever has reengineered its ice cream portfolio, developing lower-sugar and plant-based alternatives specifically for the region.
PepsiCo has reformulated Quaker Oats, using local grains and flavors to appeal to Southeast Asian consumers..

Regulation-Driven Reformulations

Governments in the region are shaping food trends. Beyond Singapore’s Nutri-Grade system, Malaysia and Thailand have taxed sugary drinks, pushing brands to cut sugar and create healthier alternatives.

Winning in Southeast Asia means going hyper-local – balancing affordability, tradition, and innovation. With urban consumers embracing healthier choices, brands that navigate these demands will be best positioned to thrive.

The Future of Food and Beverage Brands in a Changing Market

Consumer preferences aren’t just influencing the food industry – they’re reshaping it. Legacy brands are scrambling to keep up, forced to balance health-conscious reformulations, affordability, and regional differences while dodging the backlash against shrinkflation – all without sacrificing profits.

The era of mass-market, one-size-fits-all food is ending. Consumers from New York to Singapore are scrutinising labels, rejecting artificial additives, and demanding transparency. Clean-label products – those with simple, recognisable ingredients – are now a $180 billion industry, and Innova Market Insights expects them to keep growing at double-digit rates.

A New Era of Food Innovation

The next wave of food innovation is here. Functional foods, alternative proteins, and sustainable ingredients are no longer niche – they’re mainstream. Nestlé and Unilever are expanding plant-based dairy, while startups push lab-grown proteins and allergen-free snacks.

Pricing strategies are shifting. Shrinkflation backlash has forced brands to rethink how they price and package products. Instead of sneaky downsizing, companies are testing tiered packaging – premium, mid-tier, and value options – to cater to different buyers. Coca-Cola’s mini-cans and PepsiCo’s single-serve packs prove that portion size is becoming a choice, not a trick.

Who Will Win the Consumer Loyalty Battle?

Can legacy brands adapt, or will disruptors take their place? History shows big players can evolve – McDonald’s revamped its menu for the health-conscious, and PepsiCo is pivoting to cleaner, portion-controlled products. But the game has changed. Consumers have more choices, more information, and more power than ever.

The winners will be the brands that listen, adapt, and innovate – not just react. The losers? They risk becoming relics of an industry that couldn’t keep up.

Kadence is a global market research firm helping food and beverage brands decode consumer behavior, price sensitivity, and taste preferences. If you want to understand how packaging changes impact demand – and what drives buyers’ choices – reach out to us.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Customisation has been the buzzword for product teams for years. But no amount of data will make a creative team in New York relatable to consumers in Tokyo, or a product crafted for Parisians resonate deeply with shoppers in Bangkok. If global brands truly aim to be customer-centric, they must go beyond superficial adaptations and embrace the rich complexity of regional insights.

Even the most resource-rich companies can falter without tangible local market understanding and knowledge. Take the case of Starbucks: a global juggernaut that could easily have relied on its brand strength to dictate terms in new markets. Instead, it chose a different path – investing in hyper-local strategies to align with the unique cultural rhythms of each region. From matcha- flavored beverages in Japan to mooncakes in China, Starbucks turned local insights into products and experiences that resonate deeply with its consumers.

Maintaining brand identity while adapting to local preferences is a delicate balancing act in global markets. Starbucks has navigated this challenge successfully, offering valuable lessons for brands looking to expand without losing their core essence. Here’s how they achieved it—and what others can learn from their approach.

Starbucks’ Approach to Localisation

Starbucks’ global growth wasn’t just about leveraging its iconic brand and premium coffee. The company recognised that true success required adapting to local cultures, turning its stores into cultural hubs that resonate with each market.

Understanding Regional Preferences

Starbucks begins with deep market research before entering any new country, focusing not just on consumer behaviour but also on cultural rituals surrounding food and drink. For example:

In Japan, tea culture reigns supreme. Starbucks didn’t attempt to displace this heritage but complemented it by introducing matcha lattes and hojicha beverages, carefully curated to appeal to local palates.

Image Credit: Japanese Coffee Co.

In China, where coffee consumption was once minimal, Starbucks introduced the concept of the café as a social space, aligning with the local emphasis on communal gatherings.

Image Credit: Chain Store Age

Localisation in Design

Starbucks’ approach to regional adaptation extends to store design. In cities like Istanbul, stores incorporate elements of Ottoman architecture, blending local heritage with the brand’s modern style to create a sense of cultural connection. In Paris, flagship locations embrace classic French design elements, offering an ambience that feels distinctly Parisian while staying true to Starbucks’ global identity. Meanwhile, in Mexico City, stores feature vibrant colours and traditional tilework, reflecting the rich artistic heritage of the region and resonating with local customers.

Empowering Local Teams

Another key to Starbucks’ success is the empowerment of regional teams. Decision-making authority is decentralised, allowing local leaders to design marketing campaigns, craft promotions, and innovate menus based on intimate knowledge of their markets. This ensures the brand doesn’t just speak to a market; it speaks like the market.

Data-Driven Personalisation

Behind the scenes, Starbucks employs advanced analytics to complement its qualitative insights. The company identifies regional trends by leveraging AI and customer data from its loyalty app and customises promotions accordingly. For example, Starbucks identified an uptick in breakfast consumption in India and introduced locally inspired snacks like masala egg wraps, driving foot traffic during morning hours.

Products That Resonate Locally

Starbucks’ success lies in its ability to go beyond surface-level adaptations, creating products that feel intrinsically tied to local cultures while staying true to its brand identity. Each market’s product portfolio tells a story of deep research and respect for consumer preferences.

Crafting the Local Menu

When Starbucks entered India, it wasn’t enough to introduce coffee—tea drinkers had to be considered. The company worked closely with local teams to develop chai tea lattes that balanced authentic flavours with the global Starbucks experience. Similarly, in South Korea, where dessert culture thrives, the menu features Korean-inspired rice cakes alongside its signature coffee offerings.

Seasonal Specialties

One of Starbucks’ most effective localisation strategies is its use of seasonal and festival-specific products. In China, its mooncake offerings during the Mid-Autumn Festival became so popular that they evolved into a highly anticipated annual tradition. Meanwhile, in Japan, cherry blossom season is celebrated with exclusive sakura-themed beverages and merchandise, cementing Starbucks as part of the cultural calendar.

Image Credit: Sora News 24

Ingredient Sourcing

Localisation doesn’t stop at product development—it extends to sourcing. By working with local farmers and suppliers, Starbucks ensures its offerings are culturally relevant and align with sustainability practices valued in many regions. In Latin America, for example, partnerships with local coffee growers have created a virtuous cycle, supporting regional economies while reinforcing Starbucks’ commitment to quality and traceability.

Customising Consumer Experiences

Starbucks’ approach also acknowledges how product consumption can vary widely across cultures. In Italy, where coffee is traditionally a quick affair, Starbucks adapted by offering smaller, espresso-focused options and redesigned store layouts to mimic Italian coffee bars. Contrast this with China, where coffee is a luxury experience—stores are designed to encourage longer stays, with plush seating and premium ambience.

Each product, ingredient, and experience results from Starbucks’ commitment to understanding its customers—not just as consumers but as participants in a broader cultural context. These nuanced strategies showcase how regional insights can drive product innovation, ensuring brands remain relevant across diverse markets.

Cultural Sensitivity in Branding and Marketing

Starbucks’ global campaigns succeed not because they impose a singular vision but because they reflect a deep understanding of cultural dynamics. The company’s marketing strategies don’t just sell coffee; they build relationships, fostering a sense of connection and belonging within local communities.

Speaking the Local Language

Starbucks goes beyond literal translations of its messaging to adopt the tone, style, and context-appropriate for each market. In Thailand, for instance, campaigns emphasise warmth and social harmony, values deeply ingrained in Thai culture. Advertisements highlight shared moments over coffee, reflecting the collective nature of Thai society rather than focusing on individual indulgence as they might in Western markets.

Integrating Traditions into Campaigns

The brand’s marketing consistently weaves local traditions into its storytelling. In Japan, Starbucks celebrates the art of gifting during the New Year by offering beautifully packaged coffee and merchandise that align with the culture’s focus on omotenashi (hospitality). In Mexico, Starbucks embraced Día de los Muertos with limited-edition cups and community events, solidifying its position as a brand that respects and honours local heritage.

Empowering Local Creators

Starbucks doesn’t operate in a cultural vacuum; it actively collaborates with local artists, designers, and influencers to bring authenticity to its campaigns. In Indonesia, the company commissioned local illustrators to design eco-friendly tote bags inspired by batik, a traditional textile art form. This elevated the brand’s image and reinforced its commitment to local craftsmanship and sustainability.

Navigating Cultural Pitfalls

Cultural sensitivity isn’t just about what to do; it’s also about what to avoid. Starbucks’ localised strategies are informed by extensive cultural research to prevent missteps. For example, when entering Saudi Arabia, the brand carefully aligned its operations with local customs, such as maintaining gender-segregated seating in compliance with cultural norms. By respecting these intricacies, Starbucks ensured a smooth entry into a market that might otherwise have resisted an international chain.

By infusing cultural sensitivity into its branding and marketing, Starbucks creates campaigns that resonate deeply with local audiences, building trust and fostering long-term loyalty. This approach underscores the value of understanding not just what consumers buy but why and how they buy it.

The Role of Advanced Analytics in Regional Insights

While cultural understanding and local adaptation form the heart of Starbucks’ strategy, the backbone of its success lies in the sophisticated use of advanced analytics. By leveraging technology to gather, analyze, and act on data, Starbucks ensures its regional insights are precise and actionable.

Harnessing Loyalty Data for Personalisation

With millions of members worldwide, Starbucks’ loyalty program is a goldmine of consumer data. The company uses this data to understand regional purchasing patterns, preferred flavours, and consumption timing. In the United States, seasonal trends show a spike in iced beverage consumption starting as early as March, influencing regional promotions and product launches. In Southeast Asia, where mobile payment adoption is high, loyalty app data fuels hyper-local campaigns that target users with personalised rewards.

AI-Driven Menu Customisation

Artificial intelligence plays a pivotal role in menu innovation. Starbucks’ proprietary AI system, Deep Brew, analyzes millions of data points, from sales trends to customer feedback, to recommend localised menu adjustments. In China, Deep Brew identified an opportunity for non-coffee drinks among younger consumers, leading to the launch of sparkling tea and juice blends that quickly became regional bestsellers.

Predicting Regional Trends

Predictive analytics helps Starbucks stay ahead of shifting consumer preferences. By combining internal data with external sources like social media trends and macroeconomic indicators, the brand anticipates demand for specific product categories. For instance, its foray into plant-based options in Asia was informed by a growing awareness of sustainability and health trends in the region, resulting in tailored offerings like oat milk lattes and vegetarian breakfast wraps.

Operational Efficiency Through Data

Regional insights aren’t limited to customer-facing innovations; they also optimise operations. Starbucks uses real-time data to manage inventory at the store level, ensuring popular items in specific regions remain in stock. This data-driven supply chain management reduces waste and improves profitability while aligning with the company’s sustainability goals.

Bridging Global and Local Through Insights

Starbucks’ analytics framework informs regional strategies and integrates them into the global brand vision. The company achieves a seamless balance between local relevance and global consistency by centralising insights while empowering local teams to act on them.

Advanced analytics ensures Starbucks’ regional insights aren’t just anecdotal; they’re backed by robust, actionable data that allows the company to remain agile and deeply connected to its markets. This interplay between technology and culture sets Starbucks apart as a truly global brand.

From Regional Insights to Global Impact

Starbucks’ ability to integrate regional insights into its operations has driven local success and shaped its global identity. By adopting a bottom-up approach, allowing local practices to influence broader strategies, the brand continuously evolves to meet the expectations of its diverse consumer base.

Exporting Local Success Globally

Some of Starbucks’ most iconic global offerings originated as regional experiments. The matcha latte, now a staple worldwide, was first introduced in Japan to cater to the country’s tea-loving culture. Similarly, cold brew coffee, initially rolled out in the United States, gained traction in warmer Asian markets before becoming a cornerstone of Starbucks’ global menu. These examples illustrate how regional insights fuel innovation that resonates across multiple markets.

Building a Global Playbook

While Starbucks tailors its offerings to each market, its approach is far from ad hoc. Insights gathered from different regions are systematised into a global playbook, enabling the brand to replicate success efficiently. This framework ensures consistency while allowing for flexibility, giving local teams the tools and guidelines to innovate without straying from the brand’s core identity.

Enhancing Brand Equity

Localisation has also strengthened Starbucks’ brand equity, reinforcing its position as a brand that cares about the communities it serves. In markets like China and India, where rapid urbanisation reshapes consumer habits, Starbucks has become a cultural touchstone by providing aspirational yet accessible experiences. These efforts contribute to a global perception of Starbucks as not just a coffee retailer but a lifestyle brand deeply embedded in local cultures.

Sustainability and Social Responsibility

Regional insights have guided Starbucks’ global sustainability initiatives, ensuring they align with the priorities of individual markets. Starbucks has invested heavily in ethical sourcing and farmer support programs in Latin America and Africa, where coffee farming is a critical industry. These efforts resonate globally, enhancing the brand’s reputation for corporate responsibility while making a tangible impact in the communities it relies on.

Lessons for Global Brands: Applying Starbucks’ Approach

Starbucks’ success demonstrates that regional insights do more than drive localised strategies. They create a feedback loop that informs and strengthens the global brand. Starbucks maintains its relevance and leadership in an increasingly competitive global marketplace by continuously integrating these insights into its broader operations.

The Starbucks case study offers a blueprint for global brands striving to balance consistency with cultural relevance. Starbucks showcases how understanding local markets can drive global success by embedding regional insights into every aspect of its operations. Here are key takeaways for brands looking to emulate this strategy:

Invest in Deep Market Research

Surface-level data isn’t enough. Brands must invest in both qualitative and quantitative research to understand the cultural, social, and economic nuances of their target markets. Engaging with local experts and conducting immersive research such as ethnographic studies or focus groups can reveal insights beyond traditional surveys.

Empower Local Teams

Local teams hold the key to unlocking cultural authenticity. Decentralise decision-making and give regional leaders the authority to tailor marketing campaigns, design product offerings, and adapt operations to suit their markets. Starbucks’ success in Japan and China underscores the value of trusting local expertise.

Use Data Strategically

Harness technology to complement human insights. Leverage AI, predictive analytics, and CRM tools to identify trends, forecast demand, and personalise consumer experiences. By combining data with cultural context, brands can create innovative and relevant offerings.

Design for Cultural Sensitivity

A misstep in cultural understanding can be costly. Invest time and resources to ensure branding, messaging, and product designs align with local values and customs. Starbucks’ store designs in Kyoto and Shanghai demonstrate how respecting cultural aesthetics can build trust and foster loyalty.

View Regional Insights as an Innovation Driver

Don’t silo regional insights as mere adaptations. Instead, use them to inspire global innovation. Products and strategies developed for one market often have the potential to succeed in others, as seen with Starbucks’ matcha latte and cold brew coffee.

Align Sustainability Efforts with Local Priorities

Global sustainability goals are important, but their execution should reflect regional concerns. Starbucks’ ethical sourcing initiatives in Latin America and its partnerships with local farmers showcase how aligning sustainability with local priorities enhances impact and strengthens brand equity.

Maintain Global Consistency

While localisation is critical, it shouldn’t dilute the brand’s core identity. Starbucks’ ability to retain its signature experience while adapting to local needs highlights the importance of striking this balance.

Starbucks proves global success isn’t about imposing a single vision but adapting to the diverse rhythms of local markets. The brand has turned cultural nuances into competitive advantages by treating regional insights as a strategic priority rather than an afterthought.

For global brands, the takeaway is simple: relevance wins. The deeper the understanding of local consumers, the stronger the connection and the more enduring the success. In a world where one-size-fits-all strategies fall flat, regional insights aren’t just a tool; they’re the secret weapon for staying ahead.

At Kadence International, we specialise in uncovering the cultural nuances and consumer behaviours that drive meaningful connections. With our global expertise and local intelligence, we help brands craft strategies that resonate deeply with their target markets.

Ready to make your brand truly global? Contact us today to explore how we can turn insights into impact.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.