Do consumers demand too much?

In a rush? Click here to read a summary of this article

Introduction

This report explores why some sustainability-focused packaging redesigns spark intense consumer backlash, even when the environmental intent is clear. It argues that the success of “greener” packaging often depends on consumers changing their habits, but many feel they’re being asked to sacrifice too much convenience, comfort, or product quality.

Key Takeaways

• Consumers react emotionally to packaging changes, especially when nostalgia is involved. The rumoured shift away from Capri-Sun’s iconic pouch triggered anger because it threatened a familiar, childhood ritual, not just a container.
• Recycling claims can fall apart if the system isn’t convenient. Sainsbury’s vacuum-packed mince reduced plastic by weight, but shoppers pointed out it was less recyclable in practice (store drop-off only) and created usability problems at home.
• Small design tweaks can create bigger waste elsewhere. Flexible lids on houmous pots cut plastic use, but consumers argued they can’t reseal the product, pushing people towards cling film, foil, spill risk, or food waste.
• There’s a growing public fatigue with “less practical” solutions sold as sustainability wins. Tethered caps show how concerns range from genuine accessibility and injury risks to frustration with a worse drinking experience.
• Many consumers expect brands to fix the problem, but still prioritise convenience for themselves. McKinsey notes almost 70% of US consumers place responsibility on brand owners, yet research suggests people still default to the easiest option, like expecting plastic bags at checkout.
• Cultural and social norms shape what “acceptable” sustainability looks like. McDonald’s Japan faced practical scrutiny due to expectations around service and care, while deposit-return systems can carry stigma in some communities, affecting participation.

Conclusion

The report suggests there’s no one-size-fits-all formula for sustainable packaging because consumer expectations are messy, emotional, and shaped by everyday realities. The best path forward is designing changes that are genuinely useful and inclusive, while being upfront about trade-offs and listening closely when redesigns create new problems. If the industry wants behaviour change, packaging has to feel like progress, not punishment.

The success or failure of a sustainability-minded packaging design can ultimately hinge on consumer participation, but do they hold impossible expectations?

In this edition of the Brief, we delve into the most controversial packaging alterations in recent years, consider why consumers responded so poorly, and ask the important question: is the demand for convenience holding us back?

It’s surely no surprise to anyone in this industry that consumers don’t like change. Just look at the passionate responses to rumours that Capri-Sun would replace its iconic pouches with bottles: “No! This is my childhood drink. Stop changing everything.” “Won’t be the same without the straw!” “All the nostalgia, gone.” “Is nothing sacred anymore?”

Many of us grew up piercing Capri-Sun’s laminated pouches with a sharp plastic straw, and the threat of losing that unique, interactive experience sparked widespread anger and despair. Such outrage might seem melodramatic, but the Sustainable Packaging Coalition puts it in a different context.

“We tend to think about ‘the consumer’ like they’re a mythical figure, all-powerful, unpredictable, and in constant need of decoding,” the Coalition writes. “But consumers are just people, and people experience grief. That grief shows up when things change, like when brands evolve, products are reformulated, or packaging gets redesigned.”

From that perspective, it makes sense that some consumers would respond poorly to such a radical shift, especially after years of Capri-Sun going back and forth between materials – introducing and reinforcing paper straws in light of the Single-Use Plastics Directive, then petitioning the European Commission for permission to revert to plastic in line with its mono-polypropylene pouch. Arguably, the loss of familiarity is compounded by the feeling of being pulled from pillar to post, without the appropriate time to adjust to the changes.

We’ve seen similar frustrations arise when redesigns raise practical issues. Take, for example, the backlash to the vacuum-packed beef mince range from Sainsbury’s, described by SPRING founder and executive director Robert Lilienfeld as a ‘packaging fail’. Shoppers complained that, unlike its mostly kerbside recyclable predecessor, the new packaging could only be recycled at an in-store collection point – and that the vacuum pack had adverse effects on the meat’s texture.

“I now have an RSI [repetitive strain injury] and my wooden spoon [has] a flat end trying to break it up,” wrote Ian Black in a semi-humorous X post. In direct response to Sainsbury’s, he continued: “The vac packaging causes the meat to fuse together, turning it into something that should be registered as a weapon.”

Since then, both Sainsbury’s and Tesco have experienced broadly negative responses to the removal of rigid lids from their houmous pots. Consumers argued that the new flexible plastic lids cannot be resealed, leaving them with three options: eating the whole product in one sitting, storing the open container at the risk of spilling or spoiling the houmous, or else using single-use wrappers like cling film or aluminium foil to secure the pack.

Plates, lids from previous containers, and reusable stretchy lids available to buy from Sainsbury’s have all been suggested as alternative solutions, but these may require consumers to spend extra money on a component once included in the product price. Granted, the expense may not be significant, but it’s enough to lose a consumer’s goodwill; for example, author Laura Pearson speculated that the retailers were knowingly forcing consumers to spend more money at their stores (this allegation remains unproven).

Here is where the discussion becomes contentious. Ostensibly, the vacuum-packed mince and flexible houmous lids aspire to consume less plastic by weight. If the redesign impacts a product’s quality or shelf life, it is likely to create more waste later down the line; but equally, consumers can sometimes make small adjustments to their behaviour – for instance, using their existing crockery to cover an open container – and solve their own issue.

So, the question becomes: at what point do we draw the line? What differentiates practical considerations from excessive coddling when it comes to packaging design?

Truthfully, the answer isn’t clear-cut. What might seem like frivolous complaints on the surface can usually be contextualized, perhaps even understood; and it is important to meet consumers at the halfway point of listening to their grievances while helping to overcome them.

The ongoing debate around tethered caps demonstrates the full spectrum of critiques, starting with the obvious concern of sharp plastic causing injuries, especially to consumers with limited dexterity. In comparison, complaints of a less comfortable drinking experience might sound like petulant whinging. Yet it also highlights the general public’s fatigue with tolerating less practical solutions in the name of saving the environment, all while the brands that profit from it miss their sustainability targets anyway.

Consumers are aware that large corporations can tackle waste on a much wider scale; McKinsey reports that almost 70% of consumers in the United States hold brand owners and manufacturers most responsible for making packaging more sustainable. But can this widely accepted truth become a convenient excuse to shirk one’s own responsibilities, especially when the more sustainable alternative is less convenient?

Even as we scrutinize retailers for their design choices, research conducted by the University of Tartu, Riga Technical University, and the Latvian State Institute of Wood Chemistry found that most consumers are accustomed to being offered a single-use plastic bag at supermarket checkouts – sometimes to the point of considering it poor customer service if the option isn’t provided. If a low-maintenance, low-cost (if not free) bag isn’t available, shoppers may turn to a more convenient market competitor; yet the effort required to form new habits – i.e. remembering to bring a reusable bag on a shopping trip – has become a roadblock in plastic reduction efforts, even among consumers who say they value sustainability.

These expectations of convenience can be deeply embedded in cultural norms. When McDonald’s Japan replaced its paper straws with ‘strawless’ rPET lids, consumers were fixated on its practicality – whether that meant expressing concerns that the drink would spill in transit, or praising its usefulness should the server forget to provide a straw. Perhaps this case stems from the cultural concept of omotenashi, or hospitality; as one Tokyo resident explains it: “In Japan, it’s seen as important to bring the customer the best service and care, which often equates to aesthetically pleasing, carefully packaged items.”

Conversely, one study identifies a recurring stigma among various immigrant communities in Sweden, wherein the deposit-return system is viewed as ‘something poor people do’ and invites judgment or gossip. On the topic of finances, surveys conducted by McKinsey over the past five years have consistently indicated that a product’s price, quality, and convenience are more influential in consumer spending behaviours than its sustainability metrics; and as our polarized world continues to attribute environmental concerns to the political left, it becomes increasingly useful to incentivize sustainability-minded behaviours with less ideological rewards, e.g. price savings.

This leaves us with a patchwork of expectations to cater to, and it might seem impossible to juggle them all. Those of us with a professional interest in more sustainable packaging formats might grow frustrated with the balancing act – especially when it feels like the public wants a silver bullet served to them on a platter.

Once again, we must remind ourselves that consumers aren’t a monolith, and that behind all the pushbacks are human beings with an understandable desire to preserve the familiar. Some of the most common polymers today have been in commercial use for less than a century, but that’s long enough for the majority of us not to recognize a world without plastics – and all the convenience that comes with it.

The best thing we can do is approach the issue with empathy. Progress inevitably requires change, and the ongoing climate crisis, as well as the legislative targets designed to circumvent it, puts pressure on our industry to get the ball rolling. But we should treat consumer perspectives as a help, not a hindrance, while also taking note of the setbacks. The first step might just be to make sure our innovations are useful and accessible to all, even if that means ironing out some creases along the way.

If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:

The ‘complex reality’ of reusable packaging in Europe

Single-use packaging versus reusable packaging: Which is more sustainable?

The ultimate guide to global packaging sustainability regulation

Strategic learnings from the Sustainable Packaging Summit