Glass vs PET vs HDPE — landed-cost matrix by region

PET dominates beverage and home-care below ₹150 MRP. Glass dominates premium above ₹250. HDPE owns personal-care across MRP tiers.

The middle band (₹150 – ₹250 MRP) is where the format decision is hardest. We see brands oscillate based on shelf positioning rather than cost.

In premium tiers above ₹250 MRP, the glass premium is recoverable in shelf consideration and gift-ability. Below ₹150 MRP, PET wins on landed cost and on retail-friction (breakage handling).

Specific cases where glass is non-optional regardless of MRP: hot-fill products, oxygen-sensitive formulations, premium fragrance carriers.

PET pricing is national; ±4 – 6% regional spread. HDPE similar.

Glass shows ±18 – 24% regional spread — Firozabad supply concentration drives this. Brands manufacturing in South/West pay materially more for glass than those in North.

Northeast is the highest packaging-cost region across all formats — freight-in is the dominant cost line.

Glass requires a 2 – 4% breakage allowance baked into the contract. Most brands negotiate this with the co-packer; some absorb it brand-side.

Pre-formed glass with neck-finish tolerance below ±0.4mm meaningfully reduces line-loss — worth specifying upfront.

PET recyclability is now table-stakes; brands cannot claim differentiation on it.

Glass commands a sustainability halo even at higher absolute carbon cost (transport-heavy). Consumers don't yet price the carbon truth.

Mono-PE HDPE (recycled-content blends) is the emerging premium signal in personal-care — adds ₹0.40 – ₹0.80 per bottle but commands measurable shelf consideration.