TL;DR
Get kitchen staples and gadgets delivered free — and shop member deals
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
A qualitative study of 23 people aged 18 to 27 in Slovenia found that participants generally approved of sustainable coffee practices, but convenience, price, taste and routine more often shaped their reported choices. The findings describe a gap between stated values and purchasing behavior, but the small sample cannot represent Gen Z consumers broadly.
A study of 23 coffee drinkers and non-drinkers aged 18 to 27 in Slovenia found that convenience, price and routine often shaped coffee choices more than sustainability, even though participants generally supported ethical sourcing and environmental responsibility. Published July 27 in Frontiers in Sustainability, the qualitative research describes a gap between young consumers’ expressed values and their reported everyday purchasing decisions.
Polona Dakič of the Faculty of Management at the University of Primorska in Koper conducted three focus groups, dividing participants into heavy coffee users, casual users and non-drinkers. The groups discussed what sustainability in coffee meant to them and how it related to their habits and purchases. Participants recognized ideas including ethical sourcing, recyclable packaging, fair-trade certification and environmental responsibility, and generally responded positively to them.
But those views did not usually determine what participants bought. The paper says decisions were more often influenced by speed, affordability, taste, comfort and familiarity, along with routine and social circumstances. One participant described choosing whatever was fastest when stressed or late for class; another said convenience tended to fit daily routines better than ethical coffee choices.
Dakič’s paper calls the gap the “sustainability-convenience paradox”: people may value sustainability in principle while making everyday purchases according to other priorities. Some participants also questioned coffee brands’ sustainability claims, describing green marketing as performative labeling rather than evidence of meaningful change. The research records those views; it does not independently assess the brands or verify their claims.
Why Daily Coffee Choices Win
The findings point to a practical challenge for coffee businesses seeking to turn consumer support for sustainability into purchases. Approval of ethical or environmental practices does not necessarily outweigh price, speed or habit at the point of sale, according to the focus group discussions. The study suggests that sustainable options may need to fit customers’ existing routines and budgets if those values are to shape what they buy.
The participants’ skepticism toward green marketing also matters for how companies communicate. Sustainability labels may not persuade consumers who doubt that a claim reflects substantial change. The study did not test which labels, prices or product features would alter purchasing behavior, so it cannot identify a strategy likely to work. It documents the tension in this group’s discussions, rather than measuring the effect of marketing or predicting sales.
For readers, the central finding is a distinction between what consumers say they value and what they report choosing. That distinction can help explain why favorable attitudes toward sustainable coffee do not, by themselves, establish demand for a particular product or certification. The research offers a close look at one small group, not a measure of how all young people shop.
How This Fits Coffee Research
The Slovenian study adds to research on the difference between consumer attitudes and purchasing behavior. A recent study cited in the report suggested shoppers may be more likely to follow through on ethical coffee purchases when the sticker price is unchanged, even if the amount of coffee is smaller. That finding concerns a particular price and volume trade-off; it is not a result from Dakič’s focus groups.
A 2021 Mintel analysis found that the share of new coffee products carrying ethical or environmental claims had nearly doubled over about a decade. The analysis did not verify those claims or measure their outcomes. The focus group participants’ doubts about green marketing therefore provide a relevant perspective, but they do not establish whether any specific company’s claims were misleading.
A broader review of coffee sustainability research cited survey data indicating that more than 60% of consumers in North America and Europe preferred certified coffees, alongside reported willingness to pay more for traceable, single-origin products. Those survey populations and measures are not directly comparable with a small group of young Slovenian participants discussing daily habits. Together, the sources illustrate why stated preferences and actual purchasing decisions need to be considered separately.
““I care about sustainability in theory, but honestly, when I’m stressed or late for class, I just buy whatever is fastest.””
— A study participant quoted in Dakič’s paper
Limits of the Slovenian Sample
The research involved 23 participants in Slovenia and used focus group discussions. Dakič said the sample was relatively small and the study was not designed to be statistically generalizable. Its findings cannot establish how common these attitudes are among Gen Z in Slovenia or elsewhere, or how young consumers compare with older groups.
The study reports what participants said about their views and routines. It does not track transactions, measure how often participants selected sustainable products, or test whether changes to price, availability or product information would change purchases. The source material also does not specify how the participants were recruited or provide a numerical estimate of the size of the values-behavior gap.
Participants expressed doubts about some brand sustainability claims, but the study did not audit labels or assess individual companies’ environmental practices. Dakič reported receiving no financial support for the work and declared no conflicts of interest. Those disclosures describe the author’s declarations; they do not expand the study’s sample or methods.
Questions for Broader Research
The next evidence needed is research with larger and more varied samples that can show whether the focus group themes apply beyond this group in Slovenia. Studies that compare stated preferences with observed purchases could help clarify how often consumers choose sustainable coffee and how their decisions respond to price, convenience, taste or product availability.
Further work could also examine how consumers judge sustainability claims and whether specific information or certifications affect their trust. Dakič’s paper, as described in the source report, does not announce a follow-up study, set a publication timetable or identify a planned industry response. For now, the findings are a qualitative account of how a small group discussed coffee: sustainability was valued, but everyday priorities often took precedence.
Key Questions
What did the study find about young consumers and sustainable coffee?
Participants generally supported sustainability ideas such as ethical sourcing and recyclable packaging, but said convenience, price, routine, taste and familiarity more often shaped their coffee choices.
How many people took part?
The study used three focus groups with 23 participants aged 18 to 27 in Slovenia. Participants were grouped as heavy coffee users, casual users and non-drinkers.
Does the research show that all Gen Z consumers choose convenience over sustainability?
No. Dakič said the small qualitative sample was not designed to be statistically generalizable. The study describes the discussions of its participants and does not establish how young consumers overall make purchases.
Did the study verify coffee companies’ sustainability claims?
No. Participants voiced skepticism toward some green marketing, but the research did not audit brands or determine whether particular claims were accurate.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
