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 supported sustainable coffee, but said convenience, price, taste and routine more often guided their purchases. The author cautioned that the small sample was not designed to represent Gen Z consumers broadly.
A study of 23 people aged 18 to 27 in Slovenia found that young participants generally approved of sustainable coffee, while convenience, price and routine more often shaped what they bought. Published July 27 in Frontiers in Sustainability, the qualitative research examines a gap between consumers’ stated values and their everyday coffee choices; its author says the sample is too small to represent Gen Z as a whole.
Polona Dakič of the University of Primorska conducted three focus groups, with participants grouped as heavy coffee users, casual users and people who did not drink coffee. The discussions covered how participants understood sustainability in coffee and how those ideas related to their reported routines and purchases. The study was designed to explore views, not to measure how common they are across a population.
Participants generally supported ideas including ethical sourcing, recyclable packaging, fair-trade certification and environmental responsibility. But those values rarely drove a purchase on their own. The paper describes this tension as a “sustainability-convenience paradox”: people may value sustainability in principle, while immediate factors such as speed, affordability, taste, comfort and familiarity weigh more heavily when choosing coffee.
Some participants also questioned whether brands’ sustainability messaging reflected substantive change. The paper reports comments describing some green marketing as performative labeling. That skepticism is part of participants’ reported views; the study did not independently audit coffee brands or verify specific environmental claims.
When Ethical Preferences Meet Daily Routines
The findings highlight a practical challenge for coffee businesses seeking to turn consumer interest in sustainability into purchases: approval of ethical products may not be enough if those products are harder to find, cost more or do not fit consumers’ routines. For retailers and brands, the focus groups point to convenience and affordability as factors to consider alongside certifications and environmental messaging.
The study also gives a small-scale account of why consumer surveys about values may not predict actual buying behavior. A participant’s stated preference for ethical coffee can coexist with choosing the fastest available option when rushed. That difference matters to readers interpreting claims about consumer demand: stated support, self-reported habits and observed purchases are distinct kinds of evidence.
The work does not show that convenience always overrides sustainability, or that all young consumers behave the same way. It records themes in three Slovenian focus groups. Its value is in describing how participants explained their own choices and the trade-offs they perceived.
A Small Study in a Wider Debate
The report sits alongside earlier research on the difference between consumers’ sustainability preferences and their purchases. A study cited in the source material suggested shoppers may be more likely to follow through on ethical coffee purchases when the sticker price is unchanged, even if the package contains less coffee. The available summary does not provide enough detail to compare that research directly with 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 roughly a decade. That analysis tracked claims on products, not whether the claims were accurate or what effects they produced. Separately, a review of coffee sustainability research cited survey data indicating that more than 60% of consumers in North America and Europe preferred certified coffees and that some were willing to pay more for traceable, single-origin products.
Those broader findings concern different populations and methods from Dakič’s small Slovenian sample. They provide context for the question, but they cannot establish how Slovenian participants’ views compare with consumers elsewhere or whether expressed preferences lead to purchases.
“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, as quoted in the study
How Far the Findings Can Reach
The research involved 23 participants in Slovenia, so it cannot establish how frequently these views occur among Gen Z consumers in Slovenia or other countries. Focus groups capture what participants said about their habits; they do not independently track purchases or test how people respond to particular prices, labels or product placements.
The study also did not verify companies’ sustainability claims or measure the environmental and social effects of specific coffees. The source material does not report a comparison with older age groups, a representative survey or a follow-up examining whether participants’ behavior changed over time. It remains unclear how much each factor—price, availability, taste or routine—would influence actual purchases under measured conditions.
Further Research on Coffee Choices
The published study reports no next research milestone or planned follow-up. To establish whether the focus-group themes apply more broadly, future research could include larger and more diverse samples and compare reported preferences with purchase behavior. Tests that vary price, convenience and sustainability information could also help distinguish which factors influence choices.
For now, the reported finding is limited to the participants’ discussions and self-reported routines: they generally welcomed sustainable coffee, but described practical considerations as more influential in daily decisions. The author declared no financial support for the work and reported no conflicts of interest.
Key Questions
What did the study find about young coffee drinkers in Slovenia?
Participants generally supported sustainable coffee, but said convenience, price and routine more often shaped their everyday choices. The research describes views from focus groups, not a representative estimate of Gen Z behavior.
How many people took part?
The study used three focus groups with 23 participants aged 18 to 27, divided into heavy coffee users, casual users and non-drinkers.
Does the study show that Gen Z rejects sustainable coffee?
No. Participants generally approved of ideas such as ethical sourcing and recyclable packaging. The reported tension was that those values did not usually outweigh practical factors in their reported purchases.
Can the findings be applied to young consumers everywhere?
No. The author said the small qualitative sample in Slovenia was not designed to be statistically generalizable. The study does not establish how young consumers elsewhere choose coffee.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
