Packaging strategies are converging in ambition but diverging in execution. Both European and US brand owners face mounting pressures: rising costs, evolving consumer expectations and intensifying regulatory scrutiny. Yet how they respond to these challenges — and the strategic bets they’re making in 2025 — differs in meaningful ways.

L.E.K. Consulting’s latest proprietary brand owner packaging studies in Europe and the US reveal critical contrasts in investment priorities, sustainability expectations and cost management tactics.  

Across a combined 1,000+ respondents that either directly or indirectly make decisions about packaging purchasing (brand managers, packaging designers, procurement, etc.), the data shows that while innovation and sustainability remain top of mind, regional context is shaping how brand owners translate these goals into action.

This article, the final in our four-part series, examines the key differences (and a few important similarities) between European and US packaging agendas in 2025.

Cost pressure, different playbooks

Both European and US brand owners anticipate higher packaging costs in 2025. But while 70% of European brands expect increases, the figure rises to 83% among their US counterparts (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Expected changes in packaging costs

More interesting, however, is how each region plans to respond. In Europe, cost containment is driving a design-led approach: 71% of European brand owners rank packaging optimisation as their top response to cost increases, followed by supplier diversification and material switching​. Absorbing costs or passing them to consumers are distant last resorts (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Top responses to cost increases

US brand owners have materially different priorities. Their most common strategies are absorbing costs and passing them along — tactics cited by over half of respondents​. Packaging changes come further down the list, suggesting that structural flexibility may be lower or that pricing power remains stronger in key US categories.

The implication: European brands are more likely to reengineer packaging to offset cost inflation, while US brands are leaning into commercial levers to protect margins. For packaging suppliers, this means Europe may demand more value-engineering capabilities, while US players may focus on a mix between cost absorption and pass through, thereby limiting the ability of packaging manufacturers to differentiate via value-engineering capabilities.

Sustainability: Ambition vs activation

Sustainability is a priority in both regions, but how it’s operationalised differs.  

We found that US and European brand owners agree that sourcing packaging from suppliers that support environmental initiatives and packaging produced with lower greenhouse emissions are top definitions of sustainable packaging (see Figure 3).  

However, while European respondents find renewable energy use and recyclability to be key aspects of sustainable packaging, their US counterparts do not. In the US, biodegradability /compostability plays a more important role, as does the concern for low carbon transport footprint given larger distances on average. 

Figure 3. Sustainable packaging definitions

In Europe, regulatory frustration undermines some momentum. Slow or ineffective regulation is cited as the top barrier to sustainable packaging by over a third of respondents, particularly among larger firms​.  

US brands, facing a more fragmented (and limited) regulatory environment, cite fewer policy-related barriers. This is consistent with our observation that pressure for more sustainable packaging is more consumer than regulation led in the US.

Innovation: Parallel intent, divergent focus

On SKU innovation, both sides of the Atlantic are bullish. Roughly 80% of European and US brands expect to increase SKU investment over the next four years​​. But again, focus areas diverge.

In Europe, investment is centred around flavour variations, pack size changes and packaging look redesigns​. These are agile, consumer-facing levers aligned with segmentation and premiumisation.

In the US, the top area of spend is limited edition and seasonal promotions, followed by price adjustments and bundling. The emphasis is more commercial, less structural — reflecting retail dynamics and promotional intensity​ (see Figure 4). 

Figure 4. SKU investment focus

This difference reflects the commercial DNA of each region. European brands are embedding innovation within R&D and design teams, often to meet diverse channel and market needs. US brands, meanwhile, are using packaging innovation as a marketing tool, launching “fewer, bigger, better” SKUs to capture consumer attention and drive core growth​.

Smart packaging: Converging momentum

One area of convergence is smart packaging. In both Europe and the US, features like freshness indicators, QR-enabled content and tamper-evident mechanisms are seeing increased adoption​. US brands are especially focused on consumer engagement and real-time feedback loops, while European brands emphasise shelf life and traceability.

The broader takeaway is clear: smart packaging is becoming a shared toolkit, though the application varies. For packaging partners, this suggests rising demand for embedded technology solutions and partnerships that go beyond materials.

Different routes to the same destination

US and European brand owners are navigating similar macro pressures with different instincts, constraints and levers. Europe leans towards structural design solutions and supplier-led sustainability. The US tends to rely on commercial tactics, market-facing innovation and incremental adaptation.

For packaging suppliers and partners, the message is simple: location matters. Winning in each region requires not just technical capability but understanding differing customer requirements — and how the same problem is solved differently depending on the context.

This concludes our 2025 European Brand Owner Packaging Survey series. If you missed the earlier articles, we encourage you to visit them:

Key insights from the US study are available here.  

Please contact us to find out more.

L.E.K. Consulting is a registered trademark of L.E.K. Consulting. All other products and brands mentioned in this document are properties of their respective owners. © 2025 L.E.K. Consulting

Related Practice

Related Insights