Hero Finding
Only 24% of packaging decision-makers report the shift out of metal cans accelerating; 76% describe it as stable, slowed, or absent.
Asked about their company's pace of moving products out of metal cans over the last three years, 44% said it has stayed the same, 19% said it has slowed because the easiest switches have already happened, and 14% said their company has never moved a product out of metal at all. Pet food, the category the transaction cared most about, points the other way: decision-makers there expect metal share to grow.
Company pace of moving products out of metal cans, last 3 years · % of decision-makers · N=101
Key Findings
What the study surfaced.
Five signals populated the end-market matrix the transaction model was built on, each grounded in the same 101 producers.
The pace-of-switching read answers the thesis question directly: the shift is no longer accelerating.
Only 24% of the 101 decision-makers say their company's movement of products out of metal cans has accelerated over the last three years. 44% say the pace has stayed the same, 19% say it has slowed because the easiest switches have already happened, and 14% say their company has never moved a product out of metal cans at all. The regional cut sharpens the picture: 27% of European producers have never moved a product out of metal, against 6% in North America, while North American producers were significantly more likely to describe a steady pace (50% against 32%).
Stability is the plurality expectation for metal share in every human food category, at both horizons.
In every human food category, the plurality expects metal can share to stay the same, both at 3-5 years (44% to 57% by category) and at 5-10 years (39% to 50%). The nets stay narrow: at 5-10 years, fruits and vegetables sits at 26% expecting larger against 28% smaller, and seafood tilts positive at 36% against 18%. The genuine erosion pockets are visible and specific: nutrition products (39% expecting smaller against 22% larger) and soups and ready meals (31% against 19%).
Pet food, the deal-critical category, expects net metal share growth.
Among pet food decision-makers, 57% expect cat food metal share to be larger in 5-10 years and 50% expect the same for dog food, against 29% and 25% expecting smaller. The bases are small but consistent (n=14 cat, n=20 dog), and the report labeled them directional. In the qualitative track, producers tied the growth to premiumization and portion-control formats where cans fit.
The switching trigger sits at a median 9-12% price gap, and the moat has already been stress-tested.
87% of producers absorbed metal can cost increases over the past 2-3 years, a quarter of them above 10%, and 89% have felt pushback on can-driven price increases. Yet only 18% say that pushback has actually changed a packaging decision. Only 42% of buyers would begin evaluating a move away from metal at a price gap of 8% or less, the median trigger falls in the 9-12% band, and 3% say no increase would trigger a switch at all. Europe's fuse is significantly shorter: 38% trigger in the 6-8% band against 13% in North America, while North America peaks at 9-12% (34% against Europe's 14%).
In fruits and vegetables the bigger threat is fresh and frozen, not packaging substitution; elsewhere the order reverses.
In fruits and vegetables, 52% call consumers shifting to fresh and frozen alternatives the bigger competitive threat to the can, against 26% for packaging substitution. In soups, ready meals, and nutrition products the threat order reverses. The distinction matters to a volume model, because demand lost to fresh food leaves the category, while demand lost to a pouch is a packaging share fight the category can actually contest.
Sustainability mandates rank last among the five switching drivers, and lowest of all among pet food decision-makers.
Going in, the thesis was exposed to headline ESG narratives about metal packaging. The producers rank the pressure differently. In a forced ranking of five switching drivers, 42% placed sustainability mandates fifth, and among pet food decision-makers that share rises to 65%, a significant separation. Consumer demand ranked first (42% of respondents put it above everything else), with cost and total packaging economics second (32% first-place, 64% top-two). Consistent with that, 61% say metal's functional advantages (shelf life, durability, food safety) would be hard to replicate in another format, rising to 70% and above in dairy and meat, seafood, and nutrition products.
If there was a shift in consumer demand around the desire for canned products, we would definitely shift. Although we're not seeing that right now, we would have to be nimble to move away depending on what consumers are asking of us.
Packaging Procurement Vice President · Canned Food Producer
Study Design
N=101packaging decision-makers
North America and Europe
Quant + qual in one instrument
The sample covered senior packaging, procurement, R&D, operations, and leadership roles at canned human food and pet food producers, all personally involved in metal can packaging decisions, at companies above $50M annual revenue. Category-involvement bases let the outlook read per end market, and every directional answer was quantified and probed in the same session. 1,420 raw interview starts were screened and QC-filtered to 101 qualified completes across five expert networks; the screener verified current metal can usage, so the read comes from active can buyers by design. The study fielded in seven days.
Sample by segment
Mix
What the guide covered
- Metal can share trajectory per category on matched scales: past 3 years, next 3-5 years, and 5-10 years out
- Constant-sum packaging-mix allocation across metal cans, pouches, rigid plastics, cartons, and glass
- Pace of moving products out of metal cans over the last 3 years
- Banded price-increase thresholds that trigger switching evaluation
- Cost pass-through, absorbed increases, and pushback on can-driven price increases
- Forced ranking of five switching drivers, with adaptive probes on each respondent's top-ranked factor
- Innovation impact: which can improvements defend share and which the industry overweights
- Competitive threat per category: packaging substitution versus fresh and frozen alternatives
Who qualified
- Senior packaging decision-makers and procurement professionals at canned human food and pet food producers
- Personally involved in metal can packaging decisions · 2+ years in packaging-related roles
- Companies above $50M annual revenue and 100 employees
- Titles across packaging engineering and development, procurement and sourcing, R&D, strategic sourcing, operations, and senior leadership
- Current metal can usage verified in a materials matrix during screening
Crosstab · End-Market Outlook
Expected metal can share in 5-10 years, by end market.
Share of category decision-makers expecting a larger, the same, or a smaller metal can share in 5-10 years. Bases are category-involvement counts and overlap across rows, so columns are never summed; pet food rows read on small bases the report labeled directional. Highlighted row = strongest growth expectation.
| Larger | Same | Smaller | Base | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat food · directional | 57% | 14% | 29% | n=14 |
| Dog food · directional | 50% | 25% | 25% | n=20 |
| Seafood | 36% | 46% | 18% | n=22 |
| Fruits and vegetables | 26% | 46% | 28% | n=54 |
| Dairy and meat / poultry | 24% | 43% | 33% | n=37 |
| Nutrition products | 22% | 39% | 39% | n=31 |
| Soups and ready meals | 19% | 50% | 31% | n=58 |
Stability is the plurality in every human food category · Pet food reads directional · n=14 cat · n=20 dog · Erosion concentrates in nutrition products and ready meals · Bases = category involvement · multi-membership
Voice of the Producer
What packaging decision-makers actually said.
Verbatim excerpts from the qualitative track, selected to span regions, roles, and both instrument modules.
“Customers, with the humanization of pets, are driving demand for more premium products for their dogs. Offering more premium meat-rich, gravy, petite products with longer shelf life is important, and that's where cans come in.”
“There are a lot of fruit and vegetable products that are available in pouches or in plastic packs, but the unit cost is still too high.”
“This is all driven by customer shifts. As older folks stop buying and younger folks become the bigger share of our customer base, we're seeing them shift away from metal cans and more into fresh and frozen.”
“If there was a sea change against the use of metal, but right now metal is seen as very sustainable, environmentally friendly, recyclable, and useful.”
“The first criteria is cost because it's still affordable versus alternatives like glass. Secondly, customer shift, with more urban customers now tending to buy smaller formats, fits well with metal can packaging.”
Implications · what the evidence supports
Three readings from the research.
The study gave the deal team an independent, producer-level corroboration layer to set against a parallel consultancy-led market study, populating the end-market matrix from primary data rather than desk estimates.
The erosion thesis reads as largely run; the base case is a floor, not a continued slide.
76% of decision-makers describe the shift out of metal cans as stable, slowed, or absent, stability is the plurality expectation in every human food category at both horizons, and one in seven producers has never moved a product out of metal at all. The floor the thesis needed is visible in the producers' own numbers.
The volume model is category-level, not a blended decline rate.
The matrix separates a stable core (fruits and vegetables, seafood, dairy and meat), identifiable erosion pockets (nutrition products, soups and ready meals), and a growth category in pet food. The threat split refines it further: fruits and vegetables loses demand to fresh and frozen (52% against 26%), which leaves the category entirely, while the erosion pockets lose to alternative packaging, a share fight that can be contested.
Pricing power is bounded but real, and the boundary sits in Europe.
Switching evaluation begins at a median 9-12% price gap, 89% of producers felt pushback on can-driven increases yet only 18% say it changed a packaging decision, and 87% absorbed cost increases over the past 2-3 years. Europe's significantly lower threshold (38% triggering at a 6-8% gap against 13% in North America) locates the pricing risk regionally rather than spreading it across the book.
Signals the data flagged
- Stability holds as the plurality expectation across human food categories at the next read
- Pet food growth expectation (57% cat / 50% dog) confirms on larger bases
- Realized metal can price gaps stay inside the 9-12% median trigger band
- European pricing stays clear of the 6-8% band where 38% of EU buyers begin evaluating
Risks the data surfaced
| European switching threshold: 38% of EU buyers trigger at a 6-8% price gap | High |
| Erosion pockets in nutrition products (39% expect smaller) and ready meals (31%) | Med |
| Pet food growth read rests on directional bases (n=14 cat, n=20 dog) | Med |
| Fruits and vegetables demand leakage to fresh and frozen (52% call it the bigger threat) | Med |
| Share expectations are stated, not observed; sample is active can buyers by design | Low |