TL;DR
Get kitchen gear 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 but often chose based on convenience, price, taste and routine. The findings describe a gap between stated values and reported purchasing habits; the study was not designed to represent Gen Z consumers broadly.
A study of 23 coffee drinkers and non-drinkers aged 18 to 27 in Slovenia found that sustainability was generally welcomed but often did not determine participants’ coffee choices. Published July 27 in Frontiers in Sustainability, the research points to routine, convenience, taste and price as stronger influences on everyday decisions, while its small qualitative sample limits how broadly the findings can be applied.
Polona Dakič of the Faculty of Management at the University of Primorska conducted three focus groups, separating participants into heavy coffee users, casual users and people who did not drink coffee. The study examined how they talked about sustainability alongside their self-reported routines and purchasing decisions. Participants generally understood and approved of ideas including ethical sourcing, recyclable packaging, fair-trade certification and environmental responsibility.
That approval did not consistently show up as a deciding factor in what participants said they bought. The paper describes this gap as the “sustainability-convenience paradox”: people may value sustainability in principle, while daily choices are shaped more by speed, affordability, familiarity, comfort and social circumstances. One student said, “I care about sustainability in theory, but honestly, when I’m stressed or late for class, I just buy whatever is fastest.”
Another participant described convenience as the deciding factor because it fit a daily routine. Several also questioned whether coffee companies’ sustainability claims reflected meaningful changes, characterizing some green marketing as performative labeling. These comments report participants’ views; the study did not independently assess brands’ claims or measure their environmental impact.
Routine Shapes Sustainable Coffee Choices
The findings highlight a practical challenge for coffee sellers and certification programs: positive attitudes toward sustainability may not be enough to change purchases when a more sustainable option costs more, takes longer to find or disrupts a familiar routine. For consumers, the study suggests that stated preferences and buying behavior can differ even when people understand and support ethical sourcing or environmental responsibility.
The results also put attention on price, access and trust. Participants’ skepticism about green marketing indicates that sustainability labels may not persuade everyone, particularly when shoppers doubt what the claims mean. The focus groups cannot establish how common that skepticism is among young people overall, and the research did not test whether clearer labels or lower prices would change choices.
Earlier Research Shows a Similar Gap
The report places the findings alongside earlier research on the difference between consumers’ sustainability preferences and their purchases. A recent study cited in the report suggested shoppers may be more likely to follow through on ethical coffee purchases when the price is unchanged, even if the package contains less coffee. That finding points to price as a possible factor, but it does not establish what would influence the Slovenian participants.
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 tracked product claims; it did not verify those claims or measure their outcomes. A broader review of coffee sustainability research cited prior survey data indicating that more than 60% of consumers in North America and Europe preferred certified coffees and reported willingness to pay more for traceable, single-origin products. Those populations and methods differ from Dakič’s Slovenian focus groups, so the figures are not directly comparable.
“I care about sustainability in theory, but honestly, when I’m stressed or late for class, I just buy whatever is fastest.”
— A student participant quoted in the study
Limits of the Slovenian Sample
Dakič noted that the study used a small qualitative sample in Slovenia and was not designed to produce statistically generalizable results. Its focus groups capture what these participants said, not a representative estimate of how often Gen Z consumers choose convenience over sustainability in Slovenia or elsewhere.
The research also relied on self-reported routines and decisions. It did not track purchases, compare products or test whether changes to price, availability or labeling would affect behavior. The participants’ concerns about green marketing are reported perceptions; the study did not determine whether particular company claims were accurate or misleading.
Questions for Broader Consumer Research
The published study reports no follow-up milestone or additional data collection. Further research would be needed to test whether the same pattern appears among larger and more diverse groups of young consumers, and whether it changes across countries or coffee-buying settings.
Comparisons between what consumers say and what they actually purchase could also clarify how much price, convenience, taste and confidence in sustainability claims shape decisions. For now, the study offers a limited account of how 23 young people in Slovenia described their choices, rather than a forecast for the coffee market or a measure of Gen Z behavior as a whole.
Key Questions
What did the study find?
Participants generally approved of sustainable coffee practices, but described convenience, routine, taste and price as more influential in many everyday decisions.
Who took part in the research?
The study involved 23 people aged 18 to 27 in Slovenia, divided among three focus groups: heavy coffee users, casual users and non-drinkers.
Does the study represent Gen Z consumers generally?
No. The author said the small qualitative study was not designed to be statistically generalizable. It reports the views and self-reported habits of its participants.
Did the research verify coffee companies’ sustainability claims?
No. It records participants’ skepticism about green marketing but does not assess specific company claims or measure their environmental outcomes.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
