The case for non-glass wine bottles

Many wine lovers believe wine looks and tastes better in glass so glass bottles have been the wine industry’s go-to for centuries. Glass bottles, however, may not be the most carbon-friendly option available, so researchers set out to discover what could be changed to motivate consumers to choose more sustainable packaging for wine.

Researchers from the University of South Australia’s Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science and the University of Adelaide’s Business School explored people’s wine packaging choices, and how attributes such as price, brand and messaging can also influence their decisions.

Jakob Mesidis, lead researcher, said previous wine packaging research has largely focused on wine label and closure (cork or screw-top) preferences, but little attention has been paid to the format of the packaging.

According to the study, conventional glass wine bottles are the wine industry’s largest source of carbon emissions, with the manufacture of a single bottle generating 1.25 kg of carbon dioxide. In total, over two-thirds of the wine industry’s carbon output comes from the production and transport of glass bottles.

The main alternative wine packaging formats in Australia are the ‘bag-in-box’ or cask wine and aluminium cans, though new formats, such as flat plastic wine bottles, are gradually entering the market.

These formats are claimed to be up to 51% more carbon-efficient than glass, but, according to Mesidis, Australian consumers are resistant when it comes to these options.

It is thought that they may be seen as the cheaper, low-quality options compared to glass bottles, which are perceived with a sense of heritage and luxury.

“Canned wine has seen a rise in popularity but is still a small portion of the market. Flat bottles have only recently been introduced to Australia but have grown in popularity overseas,” Mesidis said.

In a survey of 1200 Australians, the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute found that cask wine and flat plastic wine bottles were the most preferred formats after traditional glass bottles. Cans were the least preferred, as they were closely tied to specific occasions, such as drinking outdoors.

Results found that package format was the biggest influence on people’s choices. Price came second, while the importance of brand and eco-messaging depended on the respondent’s age and how many eco-friendly behaviours they engaged in.

Younger people typically bought more alternative wine formats. Consumers were found to be more likely to choose alternative wine packaging when it is priced at a mid-to-low price range and if it comes from a well-known, prestigious brand.

“If a smaller, less-known winery’s mission is to grow its brand as much as possible, relying solely on alternatively packaged wines is not the way to go. Most Australians — for the time being — are still going to reach for a glass bottle when they’re at the shops,” Mesidis said.

“Larger, more prestigious brands are likely to see more success with alternatively packaged wine. Ultimately, this research provides wine marketers with a foundation for their low-carbon wine packaging strategies, rather than blindly navigating this relatively new field.

“Research in this space is still young and there is exciting work to be done to better understand this burgeoning part of the wine industry.”

The survey study, which was funded by the Wolf Blass Foundation, has been published in the Journal of Cleaner Production.

Image credit: iStock.com/ValentynVolkov