Glass Still Dominates Wine Packaging

Glass remains the dominant packaging choice for wine consumers in the United States, but a new study from the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture suggests that sustainability messaging could help alternative containers gain ground, especially among younger drinkers.

The research, published this year in the journal Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, surveyed 2,000 U.S. wine consumers and measured how much they were willing to pay for 750-milliliter servings of wine in glass, aluminum, polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, and flexible pouches. The study also tested whether information about carbon footprint and recyclability changed those preferences.

The answer was clear: glass still carried the strongest appeal. Across all age groups in the survey, respondents said they would pay more for wine in glass than for any other package. Aluminum ranked second, followed by PET, while flexible pouches came last.

Among Gen Z respondents, the highest willingness to pay for a glass bottle reached $35.38. Baby Boomers were willing to pay the least for the same bottle at $29.77. Millennials said they would pay the least for PET pouches, at $17.12.

“In general, the perception is quality wine is in glass,” said Renee Threlfall, an associate professor of food science at the University of Arkansas and one of the study’s authors. “That perception can change slowly as new and innovative packaging for wine becomes available.”

The researchers said packaging matters because wine is sensitive to light, heat and oxidation, and containers must also protect against microbes that can spoil the product. Glass has long been favored because it helps preserve wine from the winery to the consumer. But wine is now also sold in cartons, bags-in-boxes, plastic bottles, pouches and cans.

The survey found that sustainability information could shift consumer views, though not always in the same direction. Respondents who saw information about carbon footprint had the highest average willingness to pay for wine in glass, at $25.37. Those who saw only recycling information were willing to pay $24.66 on average for glass. The group that received no sustainability information had the lowest willingness to pay for glass at $22.36.

The authors said those results show that how sustainability information is presented can affect consumer behavior and may create opportunities for alternative packaging. They also found that perceptions of glass as an environmentally friendly option were split. About 45% of respondents said glass was the most sustainable packaging choice, while 39% said it was the least sustainable.

Walker Bartz, the study’s lead author and now a packaging designer at Walmart, said he expected flexible packaging to perform better than it did. He also said aluminum did not come as close to glass as he had expected.

“Aluminum has performed really well in the brewing industry but still has a way to go before it can have the same level of adoption for wine,” Bartz said.

Lanier Nalley, head of agricultural economics and agribusiness at Arkansas and a co-author of the study, said glass will likely continue to be seen as premium packaging, but he sees room for niche demand among legal-age younger consumers.

“I think glass packaging will always be seen as ‘premium,’ but there appears to be a niche market amongst younger consumers — those 21 and over — for alternative packaging,” Nalley said.

The study comes as wineries and beverage companies face pressure to reduce emissions and rethink packaging materials. The United States is the fourth-largest wine producer in the world, with annual production of about 623 million gallons and an economic impact estimated at $323 billion when wages, tourism and taxes are included.

The researchers said their findings suggest that labeling commercial wines with carbon footprint information could help alternative packaging find a market, particularly for wines meant to be consumed within a year of bottling. They also warned that consumers remain skeptical of sustainability claims and often struggle with competing labels and certifications.

“There is so much jargon about sustainability and so many different certifications that many times consumers struggle to internalize what sustainability means and what labels represent,” Nalley said.

The study adds to a broader debate in the wine industry over whether glass can keep its long-held position as the standard package or whether lighter materials with lower shipping emissions can win over consumers if companies explain their environmental benefits more clearly.