German consumers are becoming more willing to pay extra for products using sustainable packaging, but most manufacturers should be careful about how far they push that premium.

A new Simon-Kucher study found that 60% of German consumers would generally accept a higher price for products with more sustainable packaging, up six percentage points from 2025.

At the same time, the study shows clear limits to that willingness.

Around 30% of respondents said they would pay no more than 5% extra on the total product price for a more sustainably packaged product.

That creates an important message for packaging suppliers and consumer brands.

Consumers may increasingly value sustainable packaging, but value recognition and unlimited willingness to pay are not the same thing.

Willingness to Pay Has Recovered From 2025

Simon-Kucher conducted the representative Sustainable Product Packaging study in May 2026 together with YouGov.

The sixth annual edition surveyed 2,108 consumers across Germany about their attitudes, expectations and willingness to pay for sustainable packaging.

The 60% willingness-to-pay figure is notably higher than the 54% reported in Simon-Kucher’s 2025 study.

That suggests some recovery in consumer acceptance after several years in which inflation, food prices, energy costs and broader economic uncertainty put pressure on household spending.

But the recovery should not be interpreted as permission for brands to simply pass higher packaging costs directly to shoppers.

The study instead points toward a narrower commercial opportunity:

Consumers may accept a modest premium when they can clearly understand what has improved.

That makes packaging communication almost as important as the packaging change itself.

Younger Consumers Show Much Stronger Willingness to Pay

Age produces one of the sharpest differences in the study.

Among consumers under 25, 83% said they would pay more for products using sustainable packaging.

Among consumers aged over 54, that figure fell to 51%.

The resulting 32-percentage-point gap has widened by 12 points compared with 2025.

For consumer brands, this makes a one-size-fits-all pricing strategy more difficult.

A sustainable pack introduced for a younger skincare, beverage or lifestyle audience may receive a different reaction from one used for a product category dominated by older buyers.

The packaging itself may be identical.

The perceived value is not.

That means packaging decisions increasingly need to be connected with customer segmentation, product positioning and price architecture, rather than being treated only as a technical procurement exercise.

Less Packaging Material Is the Clearest Sustainability Signal

Another finding may be particularly relevant for packaging designers.

When consumers were asked how they recognize sustainable packaging, 49% identified low material use as the most important signal.

Clear recycling instructions were also identified as an important indicator.

By comparison, only 26% pointed to official environmental labels, while 12% admitted they could not reliably recognize sustainable packaging at all.

This says something important about how consumers interpret sustainability.

Technical achievements inside a packaging specification may be valuable, but they do not necessarily translate into visible consumer value.

A converter may reduce fossil feedstock, redesign a multilayer structure, improve recyclability or lower the package’s carbon footprint.

But if the shopper cannot understand that change, some of the commercial value may be lost.

Visible simplicity can sometimes communicate more effectively.

A smaller pack.

Less empty space.

Less unnecessary secondary packaging.

Clear disposal instructions.

A structure that looks easier to separate or recycle.

These are attributes consumers can understand without needing specialist packaging knowledge.

Sustainable Packaging Must Be Easy to Recognize

This creates a difficult balance for the packaging industry.

Environmental performance can be technically complex.

Consumers generally do not have the time or expertise to evaluate polymer combinations, barrier coatings, recycled-content calculations, fiber sourcing or life-cycle assessments while standing in front of a supermarket shelf.

They rely on signals.

The Simon-Kucher results suggest that material reduction is one of the strongest of those signals.

That does not mean less material automatically results in a more sustainable package.

Reducing packaging too far can create other problems.

If lighter packaging causes product damage, food waste, leakage or shorter shelf life, the overall environmental result may worsen.

For packaging engineers, the objective therefore remains optimization rather than simple reduction.

The pack needs enough material to perform its job — but no more than necessary.

That distinction is important as brands respond to both consumer expectations and new European packaging rules.

Consumers Support Packaging Regulation — Within Limits

The study also examined attitudes toward government intervention.

The highest level of support, at 37%, was for bans on certain single-use packaging formats.

Requirements to reduce empty space in packaging received support from 35% of respondents.

Only 25% supported extending deposit requirements to additional packaging types.

The pattern suggests consumers are more comfortable with measures that reduce visible waste without creating substantial changes to everyday purchasing or disposal habits.

This matters as companies prepare for tightening European packaging requirements.

Measures around packaging minimization, unnecessary empty space, recyclability and reuse are increasingly becoming operational issues rather than voluntary sustainability projects.

But regulatory compliance alone will not necessarily create consumer value.

A pack can meet a legal requirement without the shopper understanding why it has changed.

That makes communication critical.

Regulation and Consumer Expectations Are Starting to Converge

One of the more interesting developments for European packaging producers is that consumer perceptions and regulatory priorities are increasingly overlapping.

Consumers in the Simon-Kucher study say they notice unnecessary material and empty space.

European packaging policy is also increasingly focused on minimization and avoiding unnecessary packaging.

For converters, this could make some packaging redesign projects easier to explain commercially.

A right-sized package can potentially address several objectives at once:

• lower material consumption;
• reduced transport volume;
• less visible empty space;
• easier consumer communication;
• and compliance with packaging-minimization requirements.

But the strongest business case will still depend on the individual product.

Packaging cost, filling-line performance, logistics, damage prevention and shelf life all need to remain part of the calculation.

Price Pressure Has Not Removed Sustainability From the Agenda

Despite continuing economic pressure, 71% of respondents said sustainable packaging remains at least as important to them as before.

That finding is arguably more significant than the headline willingness-to-pay figure.

It suggests sustainability has not disappeared from consumer expectations even when purchasing power is under pressure.

But those expectations are becoming more demanding.

Consumers may want the sustainable option.

They may also expect it to remain affordable.

That puts pressure on packaging producers to find improvements that do not rely entirely on charging the end customer more.

For converters, this can shift attention toward process efficiency as well as material innovation.

Downgauging, lightweighting, mono-material redesign, higher recycled content, optimized carton dimensions and more efficient converting may all help improve environmental performance while controlling cost.

The commercially strongest sustainability project may therefore be one that reduces environmental impact and simplifies the packaging system.

A 5% Premium Can Mean Very Different Things

There is another practical issue behind the 5% figure.

A percentage premium on the total product price can translate into very different amounts depending on the category.

A 5% increase on a €2 product is only €0.10.

A 5% increase on a €50 product is €2.50.

The actual packaging-cost increase may also represent only a small share of that difference.

This is why packaging producers should be cautious when translating consumer research directly into packaging budgets.

The study measures stated willingness to pay at the product level, not the price buyers are willing to pay specifically for a pouch, carton, bottle or label.

For packaging suppliers, that distinction matters.

The business opportunity is not necessarily to produce a more expensive pack.

It is to create a package whose improvement is valuable enough that the brand can justify the overall product proposition.

What Should Brands and Packaging Suppliers Learn?

The study points toward three practical lessons.

First, sustainability can create additional consumer value, but the acceptable price range remains narrow.

Second, that value varies substantially by target audience.

Third, consumers need to understand the improvement quickly.

A technically sophisticated package that requires a long explanation may have less consumer impact than a visibly right-sized pack with clear recycling information.

For flexible packaging converters, carton producers, bottle manufacturers and brand owners, this means sustainability projects should increasingly be assessed through both engineering and consumer lenses.

Ask not only:

Can we reduce material or improve recyclability?

Also ask:

Will the customer recognize what has changed, and is that improvement worth anything to them?

The Packaging Question Brands Should Ask Now

If your company is currently considering a recyclable structure, downgauged film, lighter carton, recycled-content pack or redesigned e-commerce box, the Simon-Kucher findings provide a useful reason to review the business case before launch.

Compare the proposed packaging change against four questions:

Can consumers see the difference?

Can they understand why it is better?

Does the packaging still perform its primary function?

Can the improvement be delivered within a price increase the market will accept?

If the answer to only the first question is yes, the project may be cosmetic.

If the answer to only the second is yes, the value may be difficult to communicate.

And if the pack fails on protection, shelf life or usability, sustainability claims will not compensate for poor packaging performance.

The opportunity lies where material efficiency, functionality, consumer understanding and cost meet.

For packaging businesses, that is likely to be a more useful measure of sustainable packaging success than simply asking whether shoppers say they are willing to pay more.

Last Updated on 01/09/2026 by Jota Machinery