Executive Summary & Key Takeaways

The important decision around connected packaging in 2026 is not whether a brand should place another QR code on the pack. It is whether the business is ready to treat a 2D barcode as part of its product-data and production system.

That difference is easy to underestimate. A conventional barcode mainly identifies the product. A GS1-compliant 2D barcode can also carry information such as batch or lot number, expiry date, or serial number, while GS1 Digital Link can connect the physical product to information available online. The opportunity is significant, but so is the operational change behind it.

GS1’s Ambition 2027 aims for retail point-of-sale systems globally to be capable of reading and processing defined GS1 2D barcodes by the end of 2027, alongside existing linear barcodes. This is a transition, not a universal switch-off date for 1D codes.

For most brands, the right 2026 priority is therefore PILOT NOW, SCALE WITH READINESS.

The code printed on the pack is only the visible part. The real connected-packaging system sits behind it.

1. Start with the Use Case, Not the QR Code

Connected-packaging projects often begin in the wrong place. A team decides that the pack needs a QR code, then asks what content should appear after the consumer scans it.

That approach can work for a simple marketing link. It is less suitable when the code begins supporting operational functions.

A brand might want a 2D barcode to provide recycling instructions or product information. Another may want batch-level traceability. A food brand may want expiry data. A manufacturer may want serialisation or authentication. A retailer may want more information available at POS.

These use cases require different data, different levels of identification, and different system integration.

The first decision should therefore be:

What problem should the code solve that the existing packaging cannot solve efficiently?

If the purpose is mainly consumer engagement, the technical architecture may remain relatively simple. If the objective includes recall management, expiry control, authentication, or supply-chain traceability, the quality of the underlying data becomes much more important.

A beautiful landing page cannot compensate for an incorrect batch number.

That is why connected packaging should be designed from the data backwards rather than from the artwork forwards.

2. The Barcode Becomes a Production Output

Once variable data enters the code, the packaging line becomes part of the information system.

Consider a code containing a GTIN plus batch and expiry information. Somewhere upstream, those values need to be created, associated with the correct product, transferred to the printing system, printed on the correct pack, verified, and retained accurately throughout the process.

That introduces questions packaging teams do not normally resolve through graphic approval alone: Where does the batch data come from? Who owns it? When is it generated? What happens if the printer loses connection? How is an incorrect code rejected? Can the line verify that the printed information matches the product currently being packed?

This changes the meaning of print quality.

With conventional graphics, a small defect may be cosmetic. With machine-readable data, a defect may prevent scanning or cause the wrong information to enter a downstream system.

Engineering insight: once packaging carries variable operational data, print quality becomes data integrity.

The pack is no longer simply communicating information to the consumer. It is participating in a transaction between production equipment, retailer systems, supply-chain partners, or digital services.

3. A Code That Works in Artwork May Fail on the Pack

Digital files create a false sense of certainty around barcode performance.

A code can scan perfectly from a monitor or flat print proof and still become unreliable on the finished package.

Substrate, ink contrast, printing process, varnish, lamination, surface texture, curvature, distortion, folds, seals, and code placement can all affect readability. Flexible packaging creates an additional challenge because the printed surface can deform after filling. Small cylindrical packs introduce curvature. Metallic and highly reflective finishes can create optical problems. Textured paper may reduce edge definition.

Placement should therefore be treated as an engineering decision as well as a graphic one.

A designer may prefer to hide the code near a fold or reduce it to protect the visual hierarchy. The production team has to ask whether that position remains readable after converting, forming, filling, sealing, transport, and handling.

For premium packaging, this can create a particularly useful trade-off: cleaner artwork versus more robust machine readability.

The solution is not automatically a larger or more visually dominant code. It is to define enough protected space and contrast early, before every square millimetre of the panel has already been allocated.

The correct validation sample is therefore not the artwork proof. It is the finished pack under realistic production conditions.

4. Dual Marking Is a Transition Strategy, Not Wasted Space

Brands naturally want to recover packaging space. One attraction of 2D is the possibility that a more capable symbol could eventually replace the familiar linear barcode and reduce duplication.

But removing 1D too early creates a different risk.

GS1’s current implementation guidance states that linear barcodes will continue to coexist with 2D codes during the transition. It also warns that removing the linear barcode before retail systems are ready can result in unreadable products, manual intervention, and POS delays. Current guidance uses a 90% POS-readiness condition before products relying on retail 2D can generally dispense with the accompanying linear barcode.

There are exceptions. A retailer with full control over its private-label ecosystem, for example, may be able to move directly to a single 2D barcode when its suppliers, stores, hardware, and software are all ready. GS1 issued updated guidance on this case in July 2026.

For most global brand owners, however, readiness will not be uniform.

Taiwan, Germany, the United States, and another export market may not reach the same scanner and retailer-system maturity at the same time. A global SKU therefore has to work in the least-ready environment in which it will actually be sold.

This makes dual marking a practical risk-control strategy.

Removing the old barcode saves space. Removing it before the ecosystem is ready creates an operational problem.

The correct trigger for single-2D packaging is not the calendar alone. It is verified trading-partner readiness.

5. GS1 Digital Link and the Digital Product Passport Are Related, but Not the Same

Another distinction deserves attention because the terms are increasingly used together.

A GS1 Digital Link-enabled 2D code can connect a physical product to digital information. That makes it potentially useful as part of a Digital Product Passport architecture.

But putting a GS1 Digital Link on a package does not by itself create a compliant Digital Product Passport.

Under the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), a DPP is a defined set of product data linked through a data carrier and a persistent unique product identifier. The applicable delegated rules for individual product groups determine what information must be provided, which data carrier is used, where it is placed, and whether identification applies at model, batch, or item level. The regulation also requires interoperability, defined access rights, data availability, and other system-level conditions.

This is an important commercial distinction.

The data carrier may be visible on the packaging.

The passport is the information architecture behind it.

Brands should therefore avoid treating DPP readiness as a graphic-design project. Product data ownership, identifiers, access rights, update processes, system interoperability, and long-term data availability may require much more work than printing the code itself.

6. A Practical Connected-Packaging Decision Framework

Before moving from a conventional barcode to a more capable 2D system, review four gates.

Gate 1 — Use Case

Define the required outcome: consumer information, recycling guidance, batch traceability, expiry management, recall support, authentication, serialisation, or another operational need.

Decision rule: If there is no defined use case beyond “we should have a QR code”, remain in PREPARE.

Gate 2 — Data Readiness

Confirm which identifiers and attributes are required, where the source data lives, who owns it, how it reaches the production line, and how errors will be handled.

Decision rule: If the code depends on variable data that cannot yet be controlled reliably, do not scale. Move to SYSTEM PILOT first.

Gate 3 — Physical Production Readiness

Validate code generation, print quality, placement, surface treatment, forming effects, line speed, verification, and scanning on finished production-intent packs.

Decision rule: If performance is stable through production and handling, proceed to DUAL-MARK PILOT.

Gate 4 — Ecosystem Readiness

Confirm retailer, POS, distributor, market, and internal-system capability. Do not assume readiness is identical across countries or channels.

Decision rule: Move towards SINGLE 2D only where the complete trading ecosystem supports it. Otherwise retain dual marking.

The roadmap is therefore:

Stage	Appropriate Condition
PREPARE	Use cases and data ownership are still being defined
SYSTEM PILOT	Data structure exists but production integration needs testing
DUAL-MARK	2D capability is ready, while legacy retail compatibility is still required
SINGLE 2D	Production and the relevant retail ecosystem are both demonstrably ready

This is more useful than treating 2027 as a deadline to redesign every pack.

Executive Insight: Connected Packaging Is an Operations Project with a Consumer-Facing Output

It is tempting to assign connected packaging to marketing because the most visible feature is a consumer-scannable code.

That ownership model becomes weak once the same symbol is expected to carry operational value.

Marketing may own the consumer experience. Packaging engineering owns physical execution. IT or master-data teams may own product data. Manufacturing controls variable printing. Quality needs verification rules. Retail partners determine what their systems can process.

The commercial risk lies between those functions.

A campaign QR code that fails is disappointing. A machine-readable identifier used for operational decisions carries a different consequence.

That is why the strongest 2D programmes begin by establishing ownership across the whole chain rather than simply finding space on the artwork.

Connected packaging becomes valuable when the physical pack, the data, and the receiving system all agree on what the code means.

Consultant’s Note

When reviewing a 2D packaging pilot, do not ask the printer to show only that the code scans.

Ask the team to trace one real production record from source data to finished pack.

Where was the variable information generated? Which system sent it to the printer? How was the correct SKU confirmed? What happens when a code fails verification? How does the line prevent a previous batch’s data from being printed after changeover?

Then take finished packs from normal production—not specially prepared samples—and scan them after forming, filling, sealing, and handling.

A barcode test proves readability.

A complete trace through the process proves that the connected-packaging system is working.