European Brand Packaging Survey 2026: US Tariffs — Building Resilience Into Packaging Strategy

US tariffs are increasingly reshaping how European brand owners think about packaging sourcing, supplier footprints and cost recovery. What began as a trade policy issue is becoming a broader operational challenge affecting packaging material costs, supplier availability, lead times and inventory strategy.

L.E.K. Consulting’s latest European Brand Owner Packaging Survey shows that the impact is uneven. Some categories are seeing higher packaging volumes as companies adjust sourcing, build inventory or shift production footprints. Others are seeing limited effect or lower demand. Tariff exposure increasingly needs to be managed at the category, stock-keeping unit (SKU) and supplier levels, not only at the company or country level.

Tariffs are creating a mixed demand picture

Survey responses from European brand owners suggest US tariffs are having a material but uneven effect on packaging volume demand. Overall, 40% report an increase in volumes, 36% see minimal impact and 23% report a decrease.

As shown in Figure 1, the clearest upside is in healthcare, pharma and wellness, where 54% report higher packaging volumes. Consumer electronics also skews positive, with 50% reporting an increase. These categories tend to have more trade exposure and complex cross-border supply chains, so tariffs can trigger sourcing shifts, dual production footprints and inventory buffering, all of which can lift packaging volumes and complexity.

By contrast, beverage stands out for limited disruption, with 65% of respondents citing minimal impact and only 25% reporting an increase. This aligns with more locally anchored production and fewer structural changes to packaging volumes, even if tariffs affect costs.

Exposure appears highest in categories with complex international supply chains, heavier reliance on tariff-sensitive materials and greater regulatory or qualification complexity. Healthcare, pharma and consumer electronics therefore face greater disruption risk than do more locally anchored categories such as beverage. For packaging suppliers, this reinforces the need to assess exposure at the category and customer levels rather than assuming a uniform impact across the market.

Tariffs are therefore creating very different operating conditions across packaging categories. Trade-exposed and -regulated categories should plan for volatility and short-term demand surges, while lower-impact categories such as beverage can focus more on resilience and cost control without major packaging replatforming.

Exposure depends on the full packaging and supply chain footprint

The country breakdown adds further nuance. The survey shows UK respondents generally reporting lower tariff disruption than their continental European peers, with fewer citing increased packaging demand and a higher share reporting minimal impact (see Figure 2). However, exposure still varies significantly depending on supplier footprint, rules of origin, product classification and the specific materials used within the pack.

For packaging leaders, the implication is clear. Tariff impact cannot be assessed solely at the brand or country level. Companies need to understand exposure at the SKU level, including product classification, packaging bill of materials, supplier location and the role of tariff-sensitive inputs such as metals, resins or components.

This level of analysis matters because the mitigation answer will not always be the same. For one SKU, the right response may be a change in sourcing origin. For another, it may be supplier diversification, contract renegotiation, lightweighting or a redesign into lower-tariff materials.

Brand owners are responding first through sourcing and commercial levers

When tariff pressure increases, companies usually reach first for sourcing and commercial levers, which can be implemented quickly and often reduce exposure without changing consumer-facing packs. The survey reflects this pattern.

As shown in Figure 3, the most common measures already in place include shifting sourcing to lower-tariff origins, switching to US or in-market suppliers, raising US prices, and building inventory ahead of expected tariff changes. Many respondents are also renegotiating supplier contracts and reducing material usage to offset higher landed costs.

The split by reported impact on demand likely reflects two linked effects. Companies seeing demand increases tend to do more mitigation to protect supply and avoid packaging becoming a constraint. At the same time, measures such as inventory builds and supplier transitions can pull volumes forward, temporarily lifting packaging orders even if end consumption is unchanged. The practical takeaway is to scale mitigation to category demand while planning for short-term spikes that mitigation itself can create.

Mitigation is moving from tactical response to repeatable playbook

The next phase of response is likely to be more systematic. Brand owners are signalling that tariff mitigation will become part of normal packaging and sourcing strategy rather than a one-off reaction.

As shown in Figure 4, the most prominent planned measure over the next 12 to 24 months is the use of customs and trade optimisation mechanisms (52%). This suggests organisations are looking to manage tariff exposure through stronger classification discipline, origin planning and structured customs approaches rather than relying solely on supplier moves or inventory buffers.

Commercial levers also remain important. Just behind this, planned actions cluster around formalising cost pass-through and risk sharing across the value chain. Renegotiating supplier contracts (cost share) (44%) leads this group, while tariff-related surcharges (43%), adjusted trade terms with US customers (43%) and raising US base prices (41%) point to a more explicit and repeatable approach to recovering tariff-driven cost increases.

However, the ability to recover tariff-related costs is unlikely to be uniform across the market. Companies operating in premium or highly differentiated categories may retain greater pricing flexibility, while more price-sensitive segments are likely to rely more heavily on sourcing changes, redesign and supplier negotiations to protect margins.

Notably, packaging redesign to lower-tariff materials, cited by 43% of respondents, sits alongside these commercial levers, reinforcing that mitigation is increasingly being addressed at the pack specification level, not just through procurement.

Taken together, the pattern is clear. The next phase of response is less about isolated tactical moves and more about embedding tariff resilience into business as usual. The prominence of trade optimisation highlights an intent to build institutional capability, while the similar weighting of commercial levers and redesign suggests brand owners expect continued volatility and are putting in place both the contractual tools and the packaging changes needed to manage it over time.

Looking ahead: Tariffs are driving structural shifts in packaging strategy

US tariffs are pushing brand owners towards a more resilient operating model for US-bound packaging. That means more regionalised supply and in-market sourcing; more disciplined cost recovery through pricing, surcharges and contract clauses; and greater use of packaging design levers such as lightweighting and material substitution to reduce exposure and widen sourcing options. At the same time, mitigation itself can create short-term volume spikes, particularly when inventory is built ahead of changes or suppliers are transitioned, so planning needs to account for both structural shifts and pull-forward demand.

Over the next several years, competitive advantage is likely to depend increasingly on the ability to build flexibility into sourcing, packaging design and supplier networks before disruption occurs rather than reacting once costs and trade conditions change.

This article builds on earlier discussions in the series on the return of selective growth across the European packaging market and the shift from sustainability ambition to operational execution. In the next article, we examine how AI and digital tools are being applied across packaging value chains, including where they are creating practical value and where adoption remains limited.

To discuss how tariff exposure could affect your packaging strategy, sourcing model or supplier base, please contact us.

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. © 2026 L.E.K. Consulting