Brands in Transition: Balancing Brand Differentiation and Standardization in Sustainable Packaging

Abstract

In the changing field of sustainable packaging, companies are confronted with the challenge of balancing sustainability with brand differentiation. The move toward standardized, reusable packaging is beneficial for the environment but restricts the use of custom designs. This study explores how standardized, reusable packaging affects consumer perception in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. It focuses on the evolving role of brands to maintain brand differentiation. This research is centered around two case studies. The first examines 219 tomato products to understand the factors driving packaging diversity. Data was collected from three Dutch supermarket websites to analyze packaging types, materials, and size. The second case study investigates consumer responses to single-use versus standardized reusable packaging across eight brands in both food and non-food categories. An online survey was used to assess perceived quality (PQ), willingness to buy (WTB), and brand perception. The results indicate that standardization has a limited effect on perceived quality (the impression of excellence that a consumer experiences), suggesting that it may encourage more brands to adopt reusable packaging. Willingness to buy findings, indicating whether consumers have the intention to buy a product, were mixed. A decrease was observed in food products and an increase noted in non-food. Brand perception most often showed a decrease, indicating challenges in maintaining brand differentiation. Three strategic approaches for brands to align with a sustainability-driven market while preserving value are presented. These are focusing on visual and verbal differentiation, collaborating with competitors to adopt a common archetypal packaging, or shifting marketing away from physical packaging towards digital and authentic communication. However, the new role of marketers will need further exploration, with a focus on authentically communicating the real content and its added value.

1. Introduction

“Our world is facing significant planetary challenges such as climate change that require collective action to address these “wicked problems” [1,2]. In packaging design, this also calls for a transformational shift towards sustainable consumption and production [2,3]. On 4 March 2024, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union announced that they reached a provisional agreement on a revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. Binding reuse targets were set for 2030 [4], setting into motion this transition to more sustainable consumption and production.

The introduction of managed pool systems with reusable packaging can make a significant difference in this transition [5]. However, it also presents various systemic challenges. Research indicates that for this system to work, packaging must become standardized. This means harmonizing packaging designs to meet common requirements, resulting in similar packaging across brands [6,7,8,9]. The increasing similarity across brands presents a challenge for traditional marketing strategies that depend on distinguishing brands through packaging. The challenge arises in finding the balance to maintain brand differentiation within a standardized packaging environment. History provides a clear example of this: in the Netherlands, a successfully managed pool system with standardized returnable beer bottles has been set up, representing 95% of the beer production in the Netherlands. However, Grolsch and Heineken, two well-known brands, stepped out of the pool for their pilsner. They developed their own distinctive, branded, green bottle closely associated with their brand identity and related brand values.

Currently, companies are stagnating their transition to sustainable packaging. This is in part due to uncertainty about how to effectively convey their brand values through standardized packaging [10]. On the other hand, scientists indicate a shift in the role of marketing toward a more sustainable approach. The traditional focus on maximizing company profits shifts to a broader emphasis on value creation for all stakeholders, including employees, the community, and the environment [11,12]. Sustainability becomes not merely a marketing tool but an integral part of corporate strategy and culture. As a result, brands are called to redefine how they connect with consumers in a way that aligns with broader societal goals [6,13]. To bridge this gap and stimulate the transition towards standardization, it is important to support companies by addressing the following questions: What will be the role of brands in this new sustainable business environment? Additionally, will they be able to effectively communicate their brand values through standardized packaging?

Prior research investigated the design of reuse ecosystems and gave considerations and technical requirements for the design of standardized packaging [4,6,7,8,9,10]. However, studies about the impact of standardization on branding and consumer perspectives are limited [10,14]. Standardization can affect consumer perceptions of brands and products [3,12,15], yet it remains unclear how this changes perception and if brands can still convey their values through standardized design. One study by Halkjelsvik et al. [3] showed that standardization indeed reduces brand differentiation, thereby weakening brand appeal. Besides that, various studies show packaging shape as one of the most impactful attributes influencing purchase intention [16,17,18,19]. This demonstrates that standardization can diminish brand differentiation, potentially lowering perceived quality and willingness to buy. Much of the existing literature focused on regulated markets, where standardization was imposed by legislation, rather than voluntarily by brands as a result of a sustainability-driven business strategy. This paper explores how brands can proactively adapt to standardized packaging in a new, sustainable business environment. This is done by exploring how standardized packaging impacts perceived quality, willingness to buy, and the ability to maintain brand differentiation by investigating food and non-food products and, therefore, providing a new, more comprehensive understanding of the effect of standardization.

It was expected that standardized packaging would not align with existing brand perceptions, moving away from the desired associations and failing to reinforce brand values. Based on two case studies it was shown that the consumer perception of standardized packaging versus single-use packaging changes for specific product categories. Both positive and negative effects were found, with non-food-related packaging (bodywash from Axe & Dove) even resulting in a higher willingness to buy compared to food-related packaging (pasta from De Cecco & AH). The quality perception showed minimal significant results, with Axe resulting in a higher perceived quality compared to single-use packaging. Standardization was shown to affect the consumer’s brand perception—by comparing associations of a single-use versus standardized packaging of two brands—leading to a significant decrease in brand differentiation. The research showed that 87.5% of the cases indicate a significant decrease in brand differentiation.

Hence, the different roles of brands in a world with standardized packaging should be carefully considered. The paper introduces three scenarios and their potential consequences, providing brands with different strategic approaches to adjust to this standardized, sustainability-driven market, while maintaining brand differentiation.

2. Literature Review

The need for the standardization of packaging has a huge impact on the current more traditional focus of market differentiation. Several scholars emphasize the vital role packaging plays in marketing, especially in terms of brand differentiation and consumer perception [20,21,22,23]. Visual elements such as color, typography, and imagery on packaging have a strong impact on consumers’ purchase intentions and how they perceive a brand and its image [20,22,24,25]. These components are essential for communicating brand values and identity [26]. However, introducing standardization limits the possibility of differentiation in packaging design which could make it harder for brands to evoke their desired associations. This could lead to a possible decline in company profits and raises the question of what role branding will play in a more sustainable future.

Scholars indicate a shift from the traditional role of marketing and highlight the need for a more sustainable approach, especially in the areas of brand management and marketing [11,12]. Traditionally, marketing has focused on maximizing company profits, often with a strong emphasis on the consumer [27,28]. However, the new role of marketing in a sustainable world needs a broader focus on value creation for all stakeholders, including employees, the community, and the environment [12]. Some experts suggest that the role of marketing will diminish, while others stress the importance of marketing as a unifying force [15]. However, taking steps towards this process before the shift has been fully implemented is complex [10] and carries many risks and uncertainties [11,15]. Therefore, it is crucial to demonstrate what the role of branding could be and how brands can still convey their (adapted) brand values—albeit sometimes in different ways—within standardized packaging. Brand management is currently facing a crossroad. It must redefine its role in the ongoing transition towards a more sustainability-driven world. The purpose of branding and value creation needs to be revisited. Brands could also focus on other aspects to differentiate themselves, such as product quality, customer service, innovation, and sustainability [29]. The challenge for marketers is to bridge this gap, which requires a new mindset where sustainability is no longer just a marketing tool, but an integral part of the company’s strategy and culture [21]. Yet, taking meaningful steps in this direction is not straightforward, as it requires a systemic approach [30]. Stakeholders should collaborate to achieve certain outcomes in a society that might not be always open to such cooperation.

Providing insights to marketing managers and packaging developers into the different roles of branding in standardization will guide them in the transformation towards a more sustainable business [21]. Standardized packaging poses challenges for traditional marketing methods that rely heavily on brand differentiation through packaging. However, it also presents opportunities to create value by emphasizing other aspects, such as product quality, sustainability, and authentic communication.

2.1. Identifying Dilemma’s

Introducing standardized packaging results in two important dilemmas for brands. These dilemmas are closely related to brand positioning and how brands want to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. The first one is the loss of brand differentiation. Standardization, such as standardized packaging, limits brands’ ability to differentiate themselves through visual elements. Brands may lose their unique identity and appeal because they can no longer use distinctive packaging elements to differentiate themselves [3,25]. The second dilemma is changed consumer perception; standardized packaging can affect perceptions of the brand and product [3]. Consumers may associate standardized packaging with lower quality, less taste or a negative connotation, which can damage brand appeal [29].

Despite the dilemmas, the shift towards a more sustainable world also presents opportunities for brands. Brands that embrace sustainability can build a strong emotional connection with consumers who increasingly value ethical and responsible consumption behavior. Brand management plays a crucial role in the transition to a more sustainable world. By focusing on sustainable product innovation [12], transparent communication [11], collaboration with stakeholders [11], and creating a sustainable brand culture [31], marketing managers can bridge the gap between standardization and brand value.

2.2. Conveying Brand Identity in Packaging

Product packaging has become an increasingly important factor in the marketing mix [20,29] to convey certain brand values. Research has shown that various visual design elements, such as color, typeface style, and written content, can all impact consumers’ expectations, perceptions, and preferences for a product [32,33,34,35]. The introduction of standardized packaging could potentially jeopardize that effect.

The design of a product acts as a carrier of various symbolic meanings [36]. These meanings are a result of perceiving all design attributes together in the visual appearance of a design [37,38,39]. These design attributes create associations [40] to communicate the ‘character’ of a brand [41,42], such as exclusive or more authentic. This character can be achieved by embedding explicit design cues such as the ‘angularity’ or ‘curviness’ of a product or more implicit such as a sophisticated or nostalgic design [39,43,44,45]. Both explicit and implicit associations are powerful tools for expressing brand identity. By thoughtfully selecting and combining these elements, brands can create a congruent and compelling brand experience that resonates with their target audience [46,47]. However, standardized packaging restricts differentiation through physical features such as form, material, and texture, potentially altering consumers’ perceptions of the brand and product.

When designing packaging we identified three main levels—structural (shape and form), visual (colors, icons, typography, etc.) and verbal (text and brand name) [48]—that convey certain brand values and contribute to the brand identity. Standardization tends to affect the structural level, raising the question of whether brands can still create meaningful associations using only visual and verbal elements. Packaging shape, in particular, is one of the most influential attributes in triggering emotions and influencing purchase intention [16,17,19,49,50]. The disappearance of the structural level reduces the opportunities for brand differentiation [16,17]. Visual and verbal elements then become more important for conveying brand identity [18]. Besides that, consumer-defined eco-friendly food packaging should not just be visually appealing; it should also meet consumers’ environmental expectations regarding packaging materials and the manufacturing process [35]. Brands will need to be more creative in using these elements to stand out in a market with standardized packaging.

Furthermore, by limiting the structural level of packaging, the difference of products with respect to competition will decrease, automatically resulting in more ‘typical’ designs. High typicality means that a product design shows strong similarities to what is considered ’standard’ or ’archetypal’ for that product category [51]. A typical design can enhance a brand’s recognition, as it meets consumer expectations of how a product should look [52], which can lead to greater trust in the brand. In this study, we investigate the difference in brand perception between brands to indicate if brand differentiation decreases. Typicality can have both positive and negative effects on brand identity [51,53]. A certain degree of typicality is important for recognition and trust [54]. However, too much typicality can result in a lack of differentiation and innovation [55,56]. Finding the right balance between typicality and innovation [57] is crucial for creating a strong and distinctive brand identity.

2.3. Research Focus

From the existing literature, it becomes clear that standardization can affect consumers’ brand and product perception [3,12,15]. However, it is unclear in what way their perception changes and if brands could still translate their values into tangible design features through only the visual and verbal levels. One study by Halkjelsvik et al. [3] investigated how standardized tobacco packaging affects young adults’ perceptions. In this study brand differentiation—measured by variability in individual ratings—was notably lower with standardized packaging than with branded packaging. This reduction in variability suggests that standardized packaging may limit consumers’ abilities to distinguish between brands, potentially weakening brand appeal and differentiation. As differentiation is used to stand out and create associations in favor of the brands, it is expected that standardization could also negatively affect the perceived quality and willingness to buy. For brand perception, it is expected that the perception of the standardized packaging will not correspond to the brand perception of the existing, single-use (SU) packaging design. This suggests that the standardized design moves away from the desired associations and does not reinforce the brand values. The main research question can be formulated as: How does standardized packaging influence consumers’ perceived product quality, willingness to buy, and brand differentiation, particularly regarding brands’ ability to maintain unique brand values within such a system? In two case studies, the effect of standardization on brand differentiation will be investigated. The first case study explores the necessity for standardized packaging, investigating the variety of packaging designs regarding materials and types of packaging. The second case study delves into measuring consumer perception of standardized packaging versus single-use packaging focusing on the perceived quality, willingness to buy, and the ability to convey unique brand values. Both studies focus on low-involvement products, which are typically not major factors in purchasing decisions, especially when it comes to packaging selection in a supermarket. However, despite these products being classified as low-involvement, research suggests that environmental factors, such as recyclable packaging, can still influence consumer perceptions, even for these types of products [21,58,59,60]. This impact is likely driven by the growing awareness of sustainability issues and the increasing importance of environmental considerations in purchasing decisions across various product categories [59,60].

Additionally, it’s important to note that the purchase volume of these low-involvement products is significant. If we can help brands recognize how to approach their marketing strategies differently in a world with increasing standardization, we could drive meaningful change and make a substantial impact on both consumer behavior and brand practices.

To be able to speed up the transition towards standardization, it is important to start with ‘low-hanging fruits’ [13], which means that we choose product categories that will have a lower risk of implementation regarding safety and hygienic requirements. However, we do want to choose product categories with a large diversity in different packaging. Therefore, this study focuses on product categories with a low level of hygiene and safety legislation, but a high diversity of brand differentiation (Figure 1).

3. Materials and Methods

This study is comprised of two case studies, each designed to investigate different aspects of packaging design and its effects on consumer perception. The first case study focuses on the diversity of packaging materials and formats used in tomato products, aiming to understand the factors driving differentiation. The second case study explores the potential impact of packaging standardization on brand perception, perceived quality, and willingness to buy through an online survey. The methods employed in each case study are outlined in the sections that follow.

3.1. Case Study One: Tomato Products

Based on a field study conducted across various supermarkets, several parameters were identified as influencing brand differentiation, including brand, price, packaging type (glass, metal, plastic), product type (e.g., pureed or diced tomatoes), nutritional value (e.g., gluten-free), consumer segmentation, usability, and size (mL or grams).

During the study, we observed a wide variety of packaging sizes, which were easier to measure compared to other parameters such as consumer segmentation, brands, and nutritional value. Furthermore, the literature emphasizes the environmental impact of packaging volume, which is also addressed in the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC). This directive aims to minimize packaging waste and improve the reusability and recyclability of packaging. While the regulation does not establish explicit volume requirements, it encourages reducing material usage and enhancing recyclability, which can result in smaller or more efficiently designed packaging.

Considering both the field study findings and the supporting data, we concluded that the key factors influencing brand differentiation are: (1) product type; (2) packaging type; and (3) size.

This first case study aimed to answer the following questions:

• What different materials and sizes are used in tomato product packaging?
• What factors might drive differentiation in packaging for tomato products?

This study focused on tomato products as a representative of food categories that may benefit from reusable packaging solutions. In addition, these products present a clear case of the tension between differentiation and standardization in packaging design. This makes them ideal for analysis in the context of shifting towards more sustainable packaging. Tomato products entail diced tomatoes, passata, polpa, peeled tomatoes, tomato puree, frito, tomato soup, and tomato sauce. These products have similar requirements with regard to food safety, therefore, making it possible to compare their packaging.

In the study, 219 tomato-based products were analyzed by collecting data from three supermarket websites (Albert Heijn, Jumbo, and Ekoplaza). The products were compared based on brand, packaging type, and size (in milliliters or grams), with each variation of a product (such as different flavors of pasta sauce) recorded and counted individually. The methodology involved organizing and categorizing the data systematically, grouping products by shared characteristics like packaging type and size. This approach helped identify significant variations among the tomato-based products. Size differentiation was analyzed by standardizing the data, which included both grams and milliliters, into intervals of 20 units (either grams or milliliters). This allowed for comparisons across different measurement units and facilitated the identification of size variations across product types, packaging formats, and brands. The data was then analyzed using Microsoft Excel.

3.2. Case Study Two: Reusable Packaging Design

The second case study focused on the FMCG sector. It aimed to measure how reusable packaging (RE) affects consumer perception compared to single-use (SU), particularly in perceived quality (PQ), willingness to buy (WTB), and brand perception. The literature revealed that the structural level of packaging serves an informational role as it can be used to create meaning and associations in consumers’ minds [16,18,19,50]. By correctly translating the brand values into design features, desired associations can be created to reinforce brand differentiation. With standardization, brands will not have the freedom to design uniquely shaped packaging.

3.2.1. Setup Case Study

For the second case study, eight pairs (including a single-use and reuse option) of different brands were chosen (Figure 2). Two food and two non-food products were included considering potential variations in responses between these two categories.

The brands were organized into four categories, each with two brands: soda (Fanta and Orangina), dishwashing soap (Dreft and Seepje), body wash (Axe and Dove), and pasta (De Cecco and AH). The study consisted of two phases: a pre-study and a main study. A pre-study was conducted to identify relevant adjective pairs [40] for semantic differential scales, for measuring brand perception in the main study. The decision was made to use existing rather than fictitious brands. This was done because participants would have prior knowledge and attitudes toward these brands, providing more realistic results that closely reflected reality. The brands were selected based on their difference in product quality, brand values and unique packaging shape to assess the effect of standardization. Pasta from Albert Heijn and De Cecco was chosen for comparison. Albert Heijn is a Dutch supermarket with its own private label products, typically positioned as low-cost and lower-quality, while De Cecco markets itself as a premium, authentic Italian pasta brand. This pair was selected for the clear contrast in product quality. Additionally, orange sodas from Orangina and Fanta were selected. Both brands feature distinct bottle shapes, but Orangina stands out with its textured surface, resembling the feel of an orange peel. Dishwasher soaps from Dreft and Seepje were also chosen for their unique packaging. Seepje emphasizes its sustainability and eco-friendliness, while Dreft highlights these qualities to a lesser extent. Finally, body washes from Axe and Dove were selected due to their stark differences in packaging design and brand values

In the pre-study, participants filled in an online survey featuring brand collages. They filled in semantic differential scales and open questions, which helped identify relevant adjective pairs (associations) used for measuring brand perception in the main study. Various adjective categories as presented by Krippendorf [40] were used. The results of the pre-study (N = 9) showed nine adjective pairs with large differences. These results were used in the main study. Additional adjective pairs were required and were selected based on an analysis of the brands’ language, product portfolios, advertisements, and websites.

For the main study, standardized packaging designs were developed for each brand, featuring both a single-use (SU) and a reusable (RE) version. The SU designs were based on existing packaging, while the RE designs were inspired by established reusable concepts, incorporating visual and verbal elements from the SU packaging. This ensured that while the structural design of the packaging differed, the visual and verbal elements remained as consistent as possible with the SU version. To create the standardized packaging, existing solutions were considered as a foundation: for the pasta, the “Anita in Steel” design by Circolution GmbH [61] was used; for the dishwasher soap and body wash, pump-style packaging was selected, based on a reusable design from LOOP [62]; and for the soda packaging, a simple glass bottle with no specific shape was chosen. The packaging was displayed alongside its content and price. The SU packaging prices were based on actual market prices, and both the SU and RE packaging were priced and sized equally to ensure a fair comparison. Figure 2 presents the packaging images used in the survey.

During the survey, participants evaluated four packaging designs in total. The designs were shown one by one. To control for potential biases, the survey was designed to randomly assign participants to view either SU or RE packaging designs. A secondary layer or randomization ensured that each participant was assigned to random brands and guaranteed exposure to both brands within each product category (e.g., Axe and Dove). The survey optimized the randomization of equal responses per packaging type and brand to ensure equal results. In addition, an explanation was given to the participants of the type of packaging they would evaluate. For the RE packaging group, it was explained that this type of packaging is more sustainable and the fact that multiple brands would use the same packaging. Further details regarding the reuse ecosystem or the deposit were not specified to avoid confusion.

The packaging designs were evaluated by participants through an online survey (Qualtrics).

Participants were recruited through LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and word of mouth. The survey was open for three weeks, during which the participants could fill out the survey.

3.2.2. Definitions and Measurement

Perceived quality is defined as the consumer’s judgement about the overall excellence or superiority of the product and its packaging [63,64]. The perceived quality was measured using three indicators: overall product excellence, packaging suggestion of high quality, and visual appeal. Participants rated each on a scale from 1 to 7. The average of these three scores determined the perceived quality of each participant. The definition of Willingness to buy (WTB) is the behavioral intention of a consumer to buy a particular product [65]. WTB was similarly measured through questions on perceived value for price, pricing perception, and purchase intent. The average score from these three questions defined the WTB for each participant. Brand perception is defined in this study as “consumers’ perceptions and associations with the brand held in memory”. To measure this we used Aaker’s definition of brand associations [66] which refers to the attributes, qualities, or emotions that consumers associate with a brand.

The brand perception was measured using seven-point semantic differential scales featuring two opposing adjectives. To identify the appropriate associations for each brand, it was crucial to first determine which adjectives best represented the brand’s image. This process was carried out as follows:

In the pre-study, participants were shown collages featuring the brand’s advertisements and products. They were asked to write down three associations that came to mind when viewing these collages. Participants also completed semantic differential scales, using adjectives selected based on the brand’s identity, language, and advertisements. To ensure a broad range of associations, Krippendorff’s [40] adjective categories were applied: objective (bright–dark), aesthetics (elegant–inelegant), social value (high class–low class), emotional (exciting–boring), and quality (dangerous–safe). These categories helped capture a variety of associations. Based on the pre-study results, the most appropriate adjectives for each brand were selected for the main study. Adjective pairs that showed the greatest differences in brand perception between two brands, such as Dove and Axe (e.g., elegant–robust, feminine–masculine, soft–powerful), were chosen for the main study, as these differences made them particularly suitable for testing.

In the main study, participants were shown different packaging designs and then asked to complete the seven-point semantic differential scales using the selected adjectives (e.g., masculine/feminine for the body wash category). Each scale contained two opposing adjectives, and the average score for each scale served as a measure of brand perception. The goal was to ensure that the associations used in the scales accurately reflected each brand’s image, as established in the pre-study. Lastly, differences between brands were quantified by calculating the absolute differences in brand perception between two brands. The differences between brands were determined independently for every adjective pair.

To assess the differences in consumer ratings of single-use (SU) and reusable (RE) packaging across multiple brands, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed for each dependent variable (perceived quality, willingness to buy, and brand perception). The analysis was used to determine whether there were significant differences in consumer evaluations of the two types of packaging (SU vs. RE) for each brand.

Based on the literature review and background, it was expected that the perceived quality, willingness to buy, and differences between brands would be lower/smaller for standardized packaging, compared to the existing, single-use packaging design. For brand perception, it was expected that the perception of the standardized packaging would not correspond to the brand perception of the existing, single-use packaging design, suggesting that the standardized design moves away from the desired associations and does not reinforce the brand values.

H1: 

Standardization has a negative effect on the perceived quality.

H2: 

Standardization has a negative effect on the willingness to buy.

H3: 

Standardization has a negative effect on the brand perception.

H4: 

Standardization has a negative effect on the differences between brands.

4. Results

4.1. Case Study One: Tomato Products

In total, 219 products were analyzed. For every product, the brand, size (a created standard made by grouping grams and milliliters per units of 20) and packaging type were recorded. We believe that these two values (mL and grams) can be considered comparable, as the differences in density between the various tomato products are likely minimal since the product mainly consists of water. The study identified various packaging types and materials, including plastic containers, multilayer pouches, glass jars, glass bottles, tin cans, multilayer cartons (Tetrapack), and tubes. From these 219 tomato products, it becomes clear that the sheer number of packaging options available today is staggering. The amount of differentiation for this product category, as depicted in Figure 3, shows the importance of standardization.

Grouping the packaging by product type showed that the level of differentiation varied across products. Soup, puree, frito, and pasta are available in a wider range of packaging designs. Polpa, diced tomatoes, and peeled tomatoes have fewer options (Figure 4a,b). Grouping by packaging type showed that there is a diversity in sizes for glass jars, bottles, and tin cans, while plastic containers and tubes have standard sizes (Figure 5a,b). Grouping by brand did not give valuable results, as there were too many brands with different products which meant the data could not be compared.

Based on the data, several parameters contribute to the differentiation in packaging, including barrier properties, marketing, and usability. While packaging types like glass jars, tin cans, and laminate sacks all provide strong barrier protection, this alone does not fully explain the variation in materials used. For example, tomato-based products such as polpa, diced tomatoes, and peeled tomatoes, which contain similar ingredients like tomatoes, tomato juice or concentrate, and an acidity regulator, are typically packaged in tin cans. Heinz, however, uses multilayer cartons for its diced tomatoes. This could be a marketing strategy to stand out on the shelf. Yet, the fact that Heinz uses tin cans for its peeled tomatoes and polpa suggests that marketing alone is not the sole factor. Usability also plays a role in packaging diversity. Tomato puree, for instance, is available in both small cans and tubes. Cans offer the benefit of single-use and easy stacking, while tubes provide advantages in terms of resealing and controlled dispensing. Similarly, glass bottles and multilayer cartons allow for easier pouring compared to tin cans, while laminate sacks are lightweight and space-efficient. In conclusion, the differentiation in packaging appears to result from a combination of usability, marketing, barrier properties, and cost considerations, rather than any one dominant factor. In addition, from this case study, it is evident that the sheer number of packaging options available today is staggering. If a reuse system were in place, it would be impractical to incorporate such a diverse range of products into the system.

4.2. Case Study Two: Reusable Packaging Design

Out of 155 responses, 108 were successfully completed, while 47 (30%) were incomplete. In the manipulation check, many participants incorrectly answered the first question, identifying the packaging type (single-use versus reuse) they saw. The chance of answering this question correctly was 50%, therefore, indicating a high level of manipulation. However, all participants correctly identified the last-seen brand, which had a correct answer probability of 12.5%. Thus, no responses were excluded.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

	Single-Use	Reusable
Gender
Female	44	31
Male	13	19
Age
<25	10	9
25–40	14	12
41–60	25	20
61–75	8	7
76+	1	2
Sustainability score
Low (1–3)	4	0
Medium (4–5)	24	24
High (6–7)	29	26

shows the demographics—gender, age, and sustainability score—of the participants, categorized for single-use and reusable packaging. The sustainability score was measured using three questions with seven-point semantic differential scales. The average of the three questions was used as the sustainability score of the participants. As shown in

Table 2. Results from ANOVAs on Perceived Quality.

Brand	Single-Use			Reusable			F	p-Value
	n	Mean	Variance	n	Mean	Variance
De Cecco	27	4.68	1.15	22	4.12	1.27	2.59	0.114
Albert Heijn	27	3.48	1.19	22	3.53	1.43	0.02	0.897
Fanta	26	4.05	1.30	26	4.17	1.08	0.14	0.715
Orangina	26	3.69	1.39	26	4.23	1.27	2.00	0.163
Dove	23	4.09	1.17	25	3.99	1.11	0.76	0.762
Axe *	23	2.93	1.26	25	4.11	1.34	9.86	0.003
Dreft	28	4.55	0.88	27	4.86	1.12	1.36	0.249
Seepje	28	4.73	1.33	27	4.90	0.84	0.34	0.565
Total comparison	208	4.05	1.33	200	4.26	1.24	2.77	0.097

* Significant results.

, the majority of the participants of the survey were female, between the ages of 25 and 60, and the participants had an overall medium to high sustainability score. These demographics should be taken into account when analyzing the results.

4.2.1. Perceived Quality

All results on the perceived quality are listed in Table 2. When examining the impact of standardization on perceived quality across all brands, it was found that the RE packaging has a higher perceived quality (M = 4.26, SD = 1.23) compared to the SU packaging (M = 4.05, SD = 1.33), though this result was not statistically significant (F(1,406) = 2.77, p = 0.097). For individual brands, the one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect for the brand Axe (F(1,46) = 9.86, p = 0.003), where RE packaging (M = 4.11, SD = 1.34) was perceived as higher quality compared to the SU packaging (M = 2.93, SD = 1.26) as represented in Figure 6.

In order to gain a more profound understanding of the significant result for Axe, the data was analyzed based on demographic categories. For Axe, gender was found to be an interesting demographic as Axe’s target audience is primarily male. As indicated in

Table 3. Results of two ANOVAs on Perceived Quality by Gender for Dove and Axe.

Group	n	Mean	Variance	F	p-Value
Axe female SU *	23	2.83	1.25	12.46	0.001
Axe female Re *	12	4.11	0.63
Axe male SU	5	4.20	1.76	0.09	0.766
Axe male Re	9	4.00	1.19

* Significant results.

, additional ANOVAs demonstrated that female respondents indicated a higher level of preference for the reusable design of Axe. A slight, albeit non-significant, decrease was exhibited by male respondents, indicating that the reusable packaging would not resonate with Axe’s target group, but rather with the opposing sex. This finding, in combination with the substantial number of female respondents, provides a more comprehensive explanation for the higher perceived quality of the reusable design.

4.2.2. Willingness to Buy

All results on the willingness to buy are listed in

Table 4. Results from ANOVAs on Willingness to Buy.

Brand	Single-Use			Reusable			F	p-Value
	n	Mean	Variance	n	Mean	Variance
De Cecco *	27	3.73	1.10	22	2.79	1.07	9.09	0.004
Albert Heijn *	27	5.47	0.95	22	4.48	1.28	9.48	0.004
Fanta	26	3.40	2.34	26	3.59	1.06	0.43	0.514
Orangina	26	3.50	0.94	26	3.65	1.08	0.30	0.586
Dove *	23	2.78	1.55	25	3.64	0.82	8.15	0.006
Axe *	23	2.36	0.89	25	2.97	1.07	4.61	0.037
Dreft	28	4.35	1.22	27	4.46	0.87	0.15	0.699
Seepje	28	4.25	1.23	27	4.73	0.99	2.50	0.120
Total comparison	208	3.78	1.95	200	3.81	1.46	0.04	0.839

* Significant results.

. Standardization did not significantly affect the WTB across all brands; however, an individual brand analysis showed significant differences (Figure 7). For Albert Heijn, there was a significant effect (F(1,47) = 9.48, p = 0.004) as the RE packaging (M = 4.48, SD = 1.28) had a lower WTB compared to the SU packaging (M = 5.47, SD = 0.95). This also was present for the other pasta brand, De Cecco (F(1,47) = 9.09, p = 0.004), where the RE packaging (M = 2.79, SD = 1.07) had a lower WTB compared to the SU packaging (M = 3.73, SD = 1.10). Conversely, for Dove, RE packaging enhanced the WTB (M = 3.64, SD = 0.82) compared to the SU packaging (M = 2.78, SD = 1.55), (F(1,46) = 8.15, p = 0.006). Similarly, a significant effect was found for Axe (F(1,46) = 4.61, p = 0.037) where the RE packaging (M = 2.97, SD = 1.07) also had a higher WTB compared to the SU variant (M = 2.36, SD = 0.89).

Additional ANOVAs for Dove and Axe (

Table 5. Results of Multiple ANOVAs on Willingness to Buy by Gender for Dove and Axe.

Group	n	Mean	Variance	F	p-Value
Dove female SU *	23	2.83	1.25	5.15	0.030
Dove female Re *	12	4.11	0.63
Axe female SU *	5	4.20	1.76	11.78	0.002
Axe female Re *	9	4.00	1.19
Dove male SU	23	3.4	1.69	0.64	0.439
Dove male Re	12	2.85	1.42
Axe male SU	5	3.00	1.00	0.52	0.484
Axe male Re	9	2.52	1.64

* Significant results.

) and De Cecco and AH (

Table 6. Results of Multiple ANOVAs on Willingness to Buy by Gender for De Cecco and AH.

Group	n	Mean	Variance	F	p-Value
De Cecco female SU *	21	3.84	1.35	6.35	0.017
De Cecco female Re *	13	2.85	1.09
AH female SU	21	5.46	0.93	3.07	0.089
AH female Re	13	4.82	1.31
De Cecco male SU	6	3.33	0.67	1.32	0.272
De Cecco male Re	9	2.70	1.35
AH male SU *	6	5.50	1.01	5.16	0.041
AH male Re *	9	4.00	1.92

* Significant results.

) revealed further understanding of these significant results. Initially, it was intended that an analysis be conducted on the relationship between sustainability scores and willingness to buy (WTB). The assumption was that participants with a lower sustainability score would exhibit a lower WTB, while participants with a higher sustainability score would show a higher WTB. However, this analysis was not conducted due to the dataset being insufficiently robust for such conclusions.

For Dove and Axe, the data was analyzed based on gender. Similarly, as with the perceived quality, female respondents had a significantly higher WTB for the RE packaging of Axe. In addition, they had a significantly higher WTB for the RE packaging of Dove. There was no significance found for the male respondents. This analysis is in line with the findings on the perceived quality. The reusable packaging design seems to be perceived as having higher value and quality by female respondents, which contradicts the target audience of Axe.

For De Cecco and AH, the data was also analyzed based on gender. The results showed a significant decrease in WTB for reusable packaging among female respondents for De Cecco and male respondents for AH. However, interpreting these gender-specific differences remains challenging, as neither brand specifically targets a particular gender.

4.2.3. Brand Perception

All findings for brand perception are visualized with a spider diagram in Figure 8. The blue line represents the brand perception of the RE packaging and the black line the SU packaging. The numerical data from the ANOVA analyses can be found in Appendix A, offering a clearer overview of the statistical results.

De Cecco: Significant effects were observed for two adjectives. The RE packaging was perceived as more modern (F(1,47) = 12.8, p < 0.001) and less Italian (F(1,47) = 12.0, p = 0.001) compared to traditional and authentic Italian perceptions of the SU packaging (M = 2.78, SD = 1.09; M = 2.67, SD = 1.44). Fanta: Two adjectives for the brand Fanta were found to have a significant effect. The RE packaging was found to be more serious (M = 3.69, SD = 1.23, F(1,50) = 18.5, p < 0.001) and more boring (M = 4.04, SD = 1.08, F(1,50) = 12.3, p < 0.001), compared to being perceived as more exciting (M = 3.39, SD = 1.34) and playful (M = 2.62, SD = 1.30) in SU packaging. Axe: RE packaging altered perceptions significantly, with a shift from robust (M = 2.26, SD = 1.39), masculine (M = 1.70, SD = 0.82), and uninspiring (M = 5.70, SD = 1.49) to elegant (M = 3.09, SD = 1.20), feminine (M = 2.87, SD = 1.32), and inspiring (M = 4.39, SD = 1.41), (F(1,44) = 4.65, p = 0.037; F(1,44) = 13.0, p < 0.001; F(1,44) = 9.32, p = 0.004). Seepje: A shift was seen in the perception from more exciting in SU packaging (M = 3.39, SD = 1.34) to more boring in RE packaging (M = 4.11, SD = 1.19), with significant statistical support (F(1,53) = 4.40, p < 0.041).

4.2.4. Differences Between Brands

Figure 9 shows the differences between the brands for SU (blue) and RE (orange) packaging for all associations. The numerical data from the ANOVA analyses can be found in Appendix A, offering a clearer overview of the statistical results. Notably, in 87.5% of the cases, brand differences decreased, suggesting that standardization leads to brands being perceived more similarly. However, only a few significant effects were found (marked by an arrow). Significant findings included a decrease in brand differentiation for De Cecco and Albert Heijn on the ‘real Italian—definitely not Italian’ scale (F(1,47) = 6.93, p = 0.011) and the ‘traditional–modern’ scale (F(1,47) = 4.01, p = 0.051), where the differences narrowed significantly in the context of RE packaging. For the brands Dreft and Seepje, a significant effect was observed on the ‘exciting–boring’ scale (F(1,53) = 6.66, p = 0.013), with smaller differences in brand perception when comparing RE to SU packaging.

4.3. Limitations Case Study One

This study has several limitations that must be addressed to properly interpret the results. First, the findings were not validated by experts or brand owners, which means that the reasons for differentiation presented in this study should not be taken as definitive. Second, sizes were grouped into intervals of 20 units (gr/mL) to analyze size differentiation. Ideally, all data would use the same measurement units for consistency. However, small differences between the densities of the different tomato products might lead to inaccuracies. Besides that, grouping sizes can hide small differences that might be important for understanding specific packaging choices such as marketing or usability reasons. Some packaging, such as that of Mentos, is designed with a significant amount of headspace primarily due to marketing strategies. Lastly, tomato soup, frito, and various sauces contain more ingredients than standard tomato products, which typically consist of only tomatoes, tomato juice or concentrate, and an acidity regulator. The presence of additional ingredients makes these products less suitable for direct comparison. This should be taken into account when interpreting the findings.

4.4. Limitations Case Study Two

This study has some limitations, which include the reusable packaging design, selection of brands and products, and the number of participants in the pre-study. The first limitation has to do with the results of the WTB. For the WTB, both a positive effect (for body wash) and a negative effect (for pasta) were found. It can be discussed that the effect of a lower WTB for the pasta products was influenced by the design of the reusable packaging. Prior research [67] and a comment by a participant in the survey showed that in the case of food, people prefer transparent packaging to see the product. More specifically, Simmonds et al. [67] found that “transparent windows on product packaging can lead to increased willingness to purchase”. The reusable packaging in the survey was non-transparent which could have influenced the WTB. The design could be a confounding factor in these results. In future research, it is recommended that the reusable packaging allows the participant to see the product to get more accurate results.

This study was based on 2D images, which does not always provide the possibility for consumers to fully understand and interpret the design. Therefore, it is recommended that 3D designs are made and tested with consumers. This could also be done through virtual reality or augmented reality.

Another factor that could have influenced the results is the use of existing, well-known brands. One could reason that using existing brands is closer to reality as in practice the reaction of consumers would be on these same brands instead of fictive ones. However, using existing brands could have made the results less objective and too specific. Therefore, if this research were to be performed in the future, it would be recommended to use fictive brands to see if similar results can be observed. Furthermore, because of the limited number of brands in this study, the conclusion that standardization has a negative effect on the differences between brands cannot be made. In addition, the product categories that were used in this study were limited and the results can be influenced by these products. Therefore, it is recommended that future research studies more brands and product categories.

Finally, the number of participants in the pre-studies and main studies was limited. Because of a time constraint, the decision was made to start with the main study and work with the nine responses from the pre-study. Typically, such a limited number of responses would not allow for the drawing of definitive conclusions. However, given that this was a preliminary study, this number was neglected. For the main study, although the total number of respondents was 108, the number of responses per brand was relatively low due to randomization. This low response rate and the low number of brands used complicate the comparison of the brands, as they all have their own values.

5. Discussion

This study investigated the impact of standardization on perceived quality, willingness to buy, and brand perception in FMCG packaging. The results are not conclusive on whether standardization has a negative or positive influence on the transition to reuse, as both effects were observed.

The findings showed that PQ largely remains unaffected by standardization. This finding aligns with prior studies [63,64] that argue the PQ is not solely based on packaging, but also on prior product experience and brand familiarity. The only significant effect observed was for Axe, where standardized packaging led to a higher perceived quality (PQ). This deviation may be explained by the fact that the standardized packaging resonated more with female respondents, who made up the majority of the study’s participants. This outcome underscores the potential unintended consequences of standardized designs, which may lead to unintended shifts in brand perceptions, favoring certain consumer demographics over others.

While the findings were not consistently significant, they do reveal a clear trend (87.5%), suggesting that standardized packaging with an identical structural design impacts brand differentiation. According to Aaker’s Brand Equity Model [66], this reduction in brand differentiation could hinder brands’ ability to maintain a distinctive identity, thereby weakening brand loyalty and overall brand equity. This outcome may encourage companies to be less inclined to undertake an expensive transition to standardized packaging, as it could potentially diminish their brand identity and jeopardize the core values they aspire to convey.

The results for WTB were mixed, with a decrease observed for food products (pasta) which aligns with Simmonds et al. [67]’s findings that transparency in food packaging can enhance WTB in product packaging. The lack of visibility in the standardized packaging negatively affected the WTB. The increased WTB observed for non-food products (body wash) aligns with prior literature on consumer perception [40,41,46], where packaging serves as a critical element in communicating brand values. The standardized packaging used for Dove and Axe resonated more strongly with female respondents, who constituted the majority of the study’s participants.

While the higher WTB and PQ for Axe might seem positive, this effect does not favor Axe’s more masculine brand strategy. Unlike Dove, which benefits from the alignment, Axe risks losing their masculine image. The example of Axe and Dove shows how Dove benefits from the chosen standardized packaging as it aligns with its traditionally feminine values and identity. Conversely, Axe faces challenges, as the standardized packaging lacks the masculinity and robustness which are associated with the brand and are central to its brand identity.

The results show that female respondents have a higher WTB and PQ for Axe’s standardized packaging. This suggests that the new packaging resonated more with females, which contradicts Axe’s traditional male-focused branding and marketing strategy. This misalignment forces male-oriented brands like Axe to reconsider their marketing strategies and communication to avoid alienating their target audience. If Axe were to use this design for standardized packaging, it would need to find alternative ways to reinforce its masculine and robust brand values.

5.1. Key Negative Effects of Standardization

The results of this study highlight the complex impact of packaging standardization. Introducing standardization can significantly alter a brand’s desired associations, potentially affecting long-term strategy and consumer loyalty. Below, we outline the five key negative effects:

Standardization in packaging can lead to reduced brand differentiation (1). As packaging becomes more uniform, it becomes harder for consumers to distinguish one brand from another [68,69,70]. This dilution of visual identity weakens the brand associations that packaging is designed to build, making it less effective in conveying the unique attributes of the brand. Furthermore, when packaging becomes standardized, it can result in a decrease in perceived quality (2). Consumers often associate unique packaging with a high-quality product, and when that distinctive packaging is lost, the subtle signal of quality may be diminished. This may potentially impact consumer perceptions [71].

This loss of distinctiveness and perceived quality can also affect brand loyalty (3). Consumers tend to remain loyal to brands they view as unique, reliable, and of high quality. When these key elements are compromised through standardization, the risk of losing loyal customers increases [68,71,72]. Additionally, packaging serves as an important communication tool for brands, allowing them to share their story, highlight sustainability efforts, and provide product information [73]. Standardization can limit product communication (4), reducing a brand’s ability to connect with its consumers on a deeper level.

Finally, the risk of confusion (5) is heightened when multiple products share the same type of packaging. In a crowded marketplace, where many different brands compete for consumer attention, standardized packaging can make it difficult for consumers to identify and remember specific brands. This confusion can ultimately lead to a decrease in customer satisfaction resulting in lower brand loyalty. These negative aspects have a clear influence on consumer behavior, which we can examine through the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [74]. The theory suggests that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC) directly influence consumer decisions. Standardization impacts attitudes by making products seem more generic, which weakens emotional connections with the brand and reduces brand loyalty and willingness to buy (WTB) [66]. However, if standardized packaging offers benefits like sustainability, attitudes may shift positively. Subjective norms are also affected, as the loss of distinctive visual cues reduces social pressure to choose specific brands, though if the packaging aligns with eco-friendly values, it could create new pressures. Lastly, PBC is influenced by the ease of use or recyclability of standardized packaging, which can increase WTB if consumers perceive it as more convenient or sustainable. Over time, the interaction between these factors could shift consumer behavior, potentially making standardized packaging more acceptable as social norms evolve. Brands must carefully manage these dynamics to maintain their equity while adapting to changes in consumer preferences.

5.2. Strategic Approaches for Brands

As highlighted in the introduction, it is essential to redefine the role of marketing within a more sustainability-focused society. As standardization becomes more prevalent, it is crucial to reassess our current processes and systems, particularly within pooled systems, where necessary adjustments must be made. We envision three strategic approaches to consider in this context:

• Traditional market differentiation

Brands will continue with the current approach, adopting a standardized structural packaging that is used across multiple brands, with competition focused primarily on visual and verbal differentiation. The least adapted strategy is translating brand values at both a visual and verbal level, while it is still important that brand differentiation is perceived by the customer. Companies have a defined space to share the brand’s visual identity and will also need to spread their brand identity through other channels. In this context, there is little change in the role of marketing. The benefits of following this strategy focus on maintaining a familiar approach, with fewer risks in terms of execution. This strategy could potentially have negative consequences for certain brands with specific values, as demonstrated in case study two.

2.

Collaboration among brands

Brands increasingly collaborate with stakeholders within a specific market to adopt archetypal, standardized packaging that does not necessarily provide distinct advantages in terms of brand equity. This approach encourages collaboration rather than competition, requiring a shift toward collective innovation. The first case study showed that archetypical packaging is already in use for certain products and packaging types, so this is not entirely new territory for brands. However, the idea of companies collectively deciding on the best packaging to serve as a central starting point has not been widely implemented. As a result, the role of marketers may evolve, shifting toward collaborative discussions on what is necessary.

In this more collaborative role, it becomes crucial to invest in innovative packaging research [71,75]. This could lead to smarter packaging, such as data-driven loops that enhance consumer engagement by tracking the packaging’s journey [68,69]. A remarkable example of this approach is the Heinz FOBO bottle [76] which is a returnable beer bottle that becomes more attractive and beautiful as it ages, with scuffing adding value to the design. By connecting a unique etched code, consumers can trace the bottle’s journey online, see where it has been, see what it has experienced, and even upload their own message for the next user. These new strategies have the potential to foster greater consumer loyalty which can be seen as a benefit. It also fosters innovation leading to shared solutions that benefit all stakeholders. The risks of following this strategy include more complex decision-making, as aligning different stakeholders with competing interests can be challenging.

3.

Rethink marketing strategy

Brands are increasingly reframing the role of marketing; for example, because of the tension between brand equity and environmental goals. It makes them shift their focus away from physical packaging and place a stronger emphasis on transparency, social responsibility, product quality, and the purity of the content within the packaging [77]. Brands like Upfront [78], with their focus on honesty, open communication, and the pure quality of the product, will become increasingly important in this landscape. As e-commerce continues to grow, the importance of physical packaging diminishes, prompting brands to completely change their marketing strategies. They are evolving into responsible marketers, dedicated to serving a sustainably-focused society. In this new approach, marketers no longer concentrate solely on their own brand or market but also take into account the broader impact on the Earth, society, and consumers.

Industry-wide collaboration can play a pivotal role in driving collective progress on sustainability. FMCG brands should collaborate with suppliers, retailers, and even competitors to share knowledge, resources, and best practices [68,77]. Sector-wide sustainability agreements, such as those seen in initiatives involving governments and environmental organizations, could lead to standardized practices becoming more successful [79] but these collaborations involve a systemic change. For example, companies like Danone are collaborating with recycling infrastructure [77] and Coca-Cola with WWF to improve and make packaging solutions more sustainable [68]. This shift in focus results in a subordinate role for packaging, with brand-driven values being conveyed through other channels such as websites and advertisements. Ultimately, the emphasis will be on communicating this new, more transparent and honest way of brand differentiation. Adopting the Rethink marketing strategy carries some risks. One is that systemic change is challenging and costly, requiring significant investment in new technologies and processes. Another risk is a decrease in brand loyalty, as sudden changes may alienate existing customers. Additionally, determining who is responsible—whether marketers, companies, or governments—can complicate the process.

However, there are also clear benefits. Sustainable leadership allows brands to stand out as pioneers in social and environmental responsibility, while long-term brand value is enhanced by fostering deeper consumer connections through transparency and social responsibility.

Each of these strategies offers a distinct pathway for companies to align with a standardized, sustainability-driven market. However, case study two showed possible negative consequences for approach one, where brands will continue with their traditional market differentiation through the visual and verbal levels. Therefore, the second or third strategy, where the role of the marketer evolves, is believed to be more successful. It would be a significant step if we could shift the competitive focus towards collaboration between competitors, with the transition to sustainable packaging at the forefront. The new role of marketers will need further exploration, with a focus on authentically communicating the real content and its added value. In this context, the risk of reduced differentiation is mitigated as not only the packaging serves as a way of communication, but other channels also play a key role in conveying these values. However, to reach this collaborative level of marketing, more research is needed to provide companies with insights not only into the drawbacks but also the benefits of transitioning to standardized packaging. Future research should focus on how this new evolving way of working can be implemented while still maintaining brand differentiation.

6. Conclusions

This study explored the impact of standardization on perceived quality, willingness to buy, and brand perception for FMCG packaging. The results indicate that standardization does not uniformly affect all measured variables. Specifically, it showed no significant effect on perceived quality, except for one brand where a higher quality was noted, contradicting the hypothesis (H1). The data revealed mixed effects on WTB, with significant but directionally opposite impacts. WTB decreased for some products while it increased for others. Other brands showed a trend toward increasing WTB, though these were not significant, leading to the rejection of hypothesis two (H2). Regarding brand perception, only a few brands showed significant effects, diverging from their established brand values. Some brands were perceived as less exciting, suggesting standardization might foster a more boring brand image. Conversely, shifts towards more elegant and feminine presentations suggest difficulties for brands aiming to maintain a robust image under standardization. Similarly, negative impacts were noted for brands wishing to convey tradition and authenticity. These findings align with the hypothesis, yet due to limited significant results, hypothesis three (H3) cannot be accepted. The study also noted that differences between brands generally decreased with standardization, apparent in a majority of cases, suggesting a trend toward less differentiation. However, the limited range of brands prevents a definitive conclusion on hypothesis four (H4). In conclusion, while the effects of standardization are not universally significant, the study reveals trends that suggest it influences WTB, brand perception, and differentiation. Brands must carefully consider these impacts to balance efficiency with the preservation of brand identity and consumer loyalty. The discussion highlights the negative impacts of standardization, including reduced brand differentiation, decreased perceived quality, and a potential loss of brand loyalty. Standardized packaging can also limit brand communication and increase consumer confusion. These effects may weaken long-term consumer connections and brand strength. Looking forward, we recommend further research to explore how packaging standardization affects consumer behavior and brand loyalty over time, as well as its interaction with other factors like sustainability. Future studies could also examine strategies for brands to adapt to standardization, such as through collaboration and enhanced communication.