Requirements of Environmentally-Aware Consumers on the Implementation and Communication of Sustainability Measures in the Beverage Industry: A Qualitative Kano-Model Approach

ABSTRACT

Although the importance of sustainability in the beverage industry for consumers rises, environmentally-friendly attitudes often do not result in sustainable buying behavior. Ineffective communication strategies or implemented sustainability measures of producers that do not deliver value from the consumer’s perspective could be the reasons. Therefore, within three environmentally-aware focus groups, grocery choice motives are discussed and, by using a qualitative Kano-model approach, consumer requirements on sustainability measures within the beverage industry are categorized. Furthermore, expectations regarding the communication of sustainability-linked information are outlined. The results reveal that the participants pay particular attention to healthy diets, prices, and discounts when buying groceries and sustainability measures within the beverage industry can mainly be classified as must-be requirements. For communicating sustainability measures, the test subjects especially demand a stronger connection between online and offline communication channels. Based on the findings, implications for beverage manufacturers and future research directions are elaborated.

KEYWORDS:

• Beverage industry
• communication
• consumer requirements
• Kano-model
• sustainability

Introduction

Due to sustainable development regulations and rising consumer environmental awareness, beverage manufacturers in the European Union (EU) need to face many challenges in 2024. Ongoing debates about climate change lead to political cross-country interventions, e.g., the European green deal (European Commission, 2021), forcing producers within the EU to adapt more sustainable business practices. Furthermore, ecological consumer segments set especially high relevance on impacts and consequences of economic activities on the natural environment when purchasing (Groening et al., 2018) so that manufacturers in the food and beverage industry need to implement and communicate environmentally-friendly production standards to influence buying decisions (Canio et al., 2021). Therefore, this paper focuses solely on the environmental sustainability perspective.

Based on the relevance of ecological purchasing decisions, the implementation and communication of sustainability measures is gaining in importance for beverage manufacturers (Rodriguez-Sanchez & Sellers-Rubio, 2021). Initial studies have therefore tried to identify determinants which (do not) drive sustainable buying behavior in the beverage industry, focussing often solely on the relevance of particular environmental attributes, e.g., CO2-emissions (Wong et al., 2020), packaging (Ketelsen et al., 2020), or organic certifications (Sogari et al., 2016). Thereby, previous research has neglected to compare the relevance of sustainability attributes or measures from the consumer’s perspective so that underlying buying considerations remain unclear, which could possibly explain the inconsistency between environmentally-friendly attitudes and actual purchasing behavior (ElHaffar et al., 2020). As initial results from other food sectors show that individual sustainability aspects are of varying importance and can be ranked from the consumer’s point of view (Cheng et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021), this paper aims to close this research gap and contribute to the literature within the beverage industry.

Communicating sustainability-linked information becomes a critical success factor in this regard, as recent findings indicate that up to 33% of European consumers disapprove of the sustainability communication from manufacturers so that they do not trust the information provided (SB Insight, 2022). Previous research has either focused on sustainability communication in general (e.g., S. Kim, 2022; S. Kim & Ferguson, 2014), without considering sector-specific characteristics such as those in the beverage industry, or have neglected consumer requirements when communicating ecological aspects (M. Kim & Kim, 2022). Since the uniqueness of the sustainability communication from a consumer’s perspective within the beverage industry has not been investigated so far, this research gap will be addressed.

In particular, the following research questions (RQ) will be examined in this paper:

RQ1: Which product attributes are considered by consumers when buying beverages?

RQ2: How can sustainability measures of beverage products be classified from a consumer’s perspective and how are these connected to consumer satisfaction?

RQ3: Which communication channels should be used to communicate sustainability measures in the beverage industry in order to meet consumer demands?

To gain an overview of relevant literature with regard to the topic, the Web of Science Core Collection database was used. Employed search strings consisted of the terms “beverage, buying, communication, consumer demand/needs/requirements/satisfaction, and purchase” that were in multiple ways connected with the Boolean operators “AND” or “OR.” In addition, organic search within Google scholar and snowball sampling were performed to enrich the literature basis. Only latest research between 2013 and 2023 was considered.

Relevance of sustainable product attributes in the beverage industry from a consumer perspective

In recent years, scientists have studied factors influencing the purchase of sustainably packaged beverages and foods (Ketelsen et al., 2020). It has been demonstrated that consumers’ environmental concerns have a positive influence on the evaluation and the purchase of sustainably packaged beverages (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014). Particularly, the recyclability of a product’s packaging is valued by consumers, can foster a positive evaluation of a product, and drive sustainable buying behavior in a food and beverage context (Jerzyk, 2016; Orzan et al., 2018).

Also, past studies have proven that environmental concern can drive the willingness to pay (WTP) for organic wine (D’Amico et al., 2016; Sogari et al., 2016) and that sustainable consumer clusters show a higher WTP for organic and fair-trade coffee (Maciejewski et al., 2019). Environmentally-aware consumers might also tend to buy locally produced beverages, especially to avoid long transportation routes and times (Grebitus et al., 2013), and show a higher WTP for beverages that cause less CO2-emissions (Canavari & Coderoni, 2019; Echeverría et al., 2014; van Loo et al., 2015; Wong et al., 2020). Furthermore, cause-related products can lead to sustainable consumer behavior in a beverage context (Ferraris et al., 2020; Onuoha & Nnenanya, 2017).

Initial studies tried to classify sustainability measures within the service and food industry from a consumer’s perspective. In a restaurant setting, local ingredients can cause more excitement than organic products and ecological attributes can generally rise consumer satisfaction (Cheng et al., 2019). Taking the food industry as an example, reducing CO2-emissions and energy consumption, preventing waste, and the selection of fair suppliers can foster consumer satisfaction, but making donations to social facilities or recycling are particularly valued (Li et al., 2021).

Although sustainability becomes steadily more important within buying decisions, other factors have been shown to have a stronger determining role. It has been demonstrated that sustainable attributes, like ecological packages (Orzan et al., 2018), can be inferior in comparison to prices when buying groceries (Meyer & Simons, 2021). In addition, price discounts can have an influence when purchasing sustainable beverages (Tseng, 2016). The high price sensitivity has been confirmed in many countries within the EU, e.g., Germany (BMEL, 2020; FACIT, 2020), and has been exacerbated by high inflation rates since 2022 (Lutsenko et al., 2023). Furthermore, cognitive engagement with individual products when purchasing food and beverages is often low, as consumers habitualize their buying behavior by relying on well-known products and brands (Machín et al., 2020), also when purchasing sustainably, e.g., by paying fundamental attention to locality and seasonality (Tucker, 2019). Nonetheless, sustainability in a food and beverage context is of high importance for certain consumer groups (Mihailescu et al., 2021; Oliver et al., 2023) and environmental considerations may lead to specific requirements for sustainability measures and information, which will in depth be investigated in the analysis.

The communication of sustainability-linked information towards consumers in the beverage and food industry

One of the biggest barriers for consumers is a lack of knowledge about ecological aspects (Polisetty et al., 2023), which can lead to a false evaluation of a product’s sustainability (Lindh et al., 2016) and mistrust toward companies (Nuttavuthisit & Thøgersen, 2017). The communication of sustainable and social practices should therefore be informative, consistent and transparent throughout different channels, approved by third-party organizations, and not be highlighting self-promotional goals (S. Kim & Ferguson, 2018). Consumers especially rely on sustainability labels (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014; Elofsson et al., 2016; Le et al., 2020; Taufique et al., 2019) and other easily accessible information on packages (Jerzyk, 2016) through graphical, structural, and informational cues (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015, 2017; Magnier & Crié, 2015; Steenis et al., 2017) to correctly evaluate a product’s or manufacturer’s social or climate impact.

In order to inform themselves about sustainability-related measures, consumers demand additional information through external and internal stakeholders and through company related information channels like websites or social media accounts (S. Kim & Ferguson, 2014; S. Kim & Ji, 2017). Local stores also remain an important information source (S. Kim & Ji, 2017), as they can promote sustainable consumption by highlighting sustainable products with signs (Lehner, 2015) or providing additional information on sustainability measures through digital displays (van Giesen & Leenheer, 2019).

While consumers tend not to care for one-way communication tools such as sustainability reports (Baviera-Puig et al., 2015), interactive two-way communication approaches that include consumer response, e.g., augmented reality applications, might offer direct added value (Cosio et al., 2023; Han et al., 2022; Kyguolienë & Braziulytë, 2022; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). This aspect has not yet been investigated in the beverage industry and will be examined in more detail within the analysis.

Materials and method

Using the Kano-model to measure consumer satisfaction in the beverage industry

For classifying the relevance of product attributes from a consumer perspective, the theory of attractive quality (Kano et al., 1984), also known as Kano-method or Kano-model, has gained great attention in this millennium (Luor et al., 2015). The theory represents a concept to understand consumer preferences by stating that consumer satisfaction is influenced by different kinds of product or service attributes. These attributes can be distinguished into five quality dimensions.

Attractive quality attributes (A) are not explicitly demanded by consumers but when they are present, they cause a high level of satisfaction. One-dimensional quality attributes (O) linearly increase or decrease consumer satisfaction when they are present or absent. Must-be quality attributes (M) represent basic consumer requirements that are taken for granted. Not fulfilling must-be quality criteria causes consumer dissatisfaction. Indifferent quality attributes (I) are not at all or only little evaluated by consumers so that they have minor to no influence on consumer satisfaction. Lastly, reverse quality attributes (R) cause consumer dissatisfaction when they are present, and vice versa.

Initial studies used the Kano-model to classify sustainable product attributes from a consumer’s perspective. In a restaurant setting, offering local ingredients can be categorized as an attractive quality attribute, while providing organic products can be classified as a one-dimensional quality factor from the consumer perspective (Cheng et al., 2019). Li et al. (2021) demonstrate in a food context that reducing CO2-emissions and energy consumption, preventing waste, and the selection of fair suppliers can be classified as one-dimensional quality attributes, while making donations to social facilities or recycling can be categorized as attractive quality factors by consumers. Due to the high fit of the model for the primary goal of this work and by building on previous research, the Kano-model is also applied in this study to classify sustainability measures from a consumer’s point of view.

The Kano-method is mostly used in quantitative study settings, which can be accompanied by difficulties for participants responding to the functional and dysfunctional Kano questions within questionnaires, often resulting in mixed or even inaccurate findings (Madzík, 2018; Violante & Vezzetti, 2017). Additionally, experiences with products and their individual attributes can lead to customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Högström & Witell, 2011), which is not considered by the original Kano-model. A comparison of the importance of sustainability measures in the beverage industry from a consumer perspective has been neglected so far. Therefore, there is a necessity to gain deeper insights into the introduced topic so that a quantitative study does not seem appropriate. Consequently, the authors follow a novel approach by using the Kano framework within a qualitative study setting, more precisely within focus groups (FGs).

Gaining insights into consumer requirements on sustainable attributes and their communication within focus groups

Conducting FGs is an appropriate method when profound insights regarding experiences, opinions, and concerns from a consumer’s perspective are required (Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999). FG participants need to have decent knowledge about and insights into the discussed topic (Morgan & Krueger, 1993). To collect relevant information regarding the requirements on sustainability measures and their communication from a consumer perspective, it was therefore necessary to define a target group that extensively deals with sustainability in a food and beverage context. Past studies demonstrated that sustainable consumer behavior in the food and beverage industry is often moderated by age, as younger consumers tend to be more environmentally-aware (Martinez-Carrasco Martínez et al., 2020), show a higher WTP for sustainable beverages (Mihailescu et al., 2021), and have higher preferences for buying sustainably (Oliver et al., 2023) than older shoppers. Some studies further conclude that the higher the education of the participants, the more inclined they are to engage in sustainable consumer behavior (Chekima et al., 2016; Mihailescu et al., 2021). With these findings in line, age and education were taken as a proxy for environmentally-aware consumers (young and highly-educated) in this study. Therefore, the participants of the conducted FGs consisted of young students that were between the age of 19 and 31.

Following recommended FG sizes and to avoid an uncomfortable environment where test subjects do not want to share thoughts, opinions, or experiences (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009), the number of members for each FG was set at seven. The sample exclusively consisted of young students within Germany so that the overall homogeneity of the sample is assumed. Little heterogeneity of the sample was ensured by interviewing students from different subjects and universities. Within three FGs, up to 90% or more of relevant topics can be discussed (Guest et al., 2017). In the present study, four FGs were interviewed, while the first FG was used as a pretest.

The FGs were conducted online in 2021 by using the software Microsoft Teams, as online FGs in particular offer the opportunity to create an atmosphere that is highly engaging and can suggest a feeling of anonymity and safety (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017). All participants were informed in advance that they would need a stable internet connection, a working camera, and a quiet environment in order to follow and contribute to the discussion, thereby counteracting potential disadvantages of online FGs (Daniels et al., 2019).

Focus group and coding procedure

To gather insights from students of different universities and disciplines, the participants were recruited through the e-mail distribution list of the Philipps-Universität Marburg and the network of the German national student organization MTP e.V. As an incentive to participate in the study, each student had the opportunity to win a gift voucher. Table 1 gives an overview of the sample characteristics.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

	FG 1			FG 2			FG 3
Subject number	Gender (F/M)	Age	Desired degree	Gender (F/M)	Age	Desired degree	Gender (F/M)	Age	Desired degree
1	F	23	Ma	F	21	Ba	F	26	Ma
2	M	26	Ma	M	23	Ba	M	25	Ma
3	F	25	Ba	F	23	Ma	F	22	Ex
4	M	23	Ma	F	25	Ma	F	20	Ba
5	F	24	Ma	M	19	Ba	F	25	Ba
6	F	23	Ba	F	22	Ma	M	31	Ma
7	M	23	Ba	F	28	Ma	M	23	Ma
Duration of the FGs	80 minutes			99 minutes			91 minutes
Subjects (total)	21
Gender distribution (total)	F: 61.9% (n = 13) M: 38.1% (n = 8)
Age (average)	23.8 years
Desired degree distribution	Ba: 38.1% (n = 8) Ma: 57.1% (n = 12) Ex: 4.8% (n = 1)

Note. Abbreviations:

F = Female

M = Male

Ba = Bachelor’s degree

Ma = Master’s degree

Ex = Examination

A semi-structured interview guide with open-end questions was created, allowing the moderator to ask intermediate questions and to explain ambiguities. The FG interviews were filmed and subsequently transcribed. The written material was anonymized and analyzed with qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014) by using the software MAXQDA 2020/2022. Based on the proposed questions, a coding scheme, consisting of variables and their dimensions, and a coding guide, consisting of anchor examples and coding rules, were created. The coding guide was deductively derived for each question on the basis of previous research and inductively supplemented where necessary. Further, non-verbal reactions and statements like nodding or hand gestures of the participants were included into the analysis to enhance the understanding and simplify the interpretation of the textual material (Mayring, 2014). Nevertheless, non-verbal statements and reactions were weighted less than verbal responses within the analysis.

Question (Q) 1 and the coding process was based on the research design and the variables of BMEL, 2020) by asking the test subjects what aspects they specifically pay attention to when shopping for beverages and food on a daily basis. Afterwards, the participants were presented logos of the selected beverage-selling parent companies ABInBev, Danone, Heineken, Nestlé, and Unilever, which were chosen due to their high sales volume and wide range of beverages in Europe (FOODDRINKEUROPE, 2020). Also, a fictitious brand named “Sunmento” was introduced to reassure that the participants answers were honest and reliable. Subsequently, the FG members were asked in Q2 if they know the presented brands and some of their offered products. Q2 was not part of the content analysis, but was necessary to ensure that the participants are engaged to the topic and are familiar with beverage selling brands. Only the recognition of the individual brands and their products was captured in the analysis.

By providing an open question in Q3, the participants were to state which environmentally-friendly activities they demand from beverage manufacturers. The collected sustainability measures were coded based on the GRI standards (GRI, 2023) number 301 (Materials), 302 (Energy), 303 (Water and Effluents), 304 (Biodiversity), 305 (Emissions), 306 (Waste), and 308 (Supplier Environmental Assessment), as they give a holistic overview and classification of environmental sustainability measures. Statements that could not be clearly assigned to one of these standards were coded within the supplementary category “Other environmentally-friendly measures.”

After collecting all answers, Q4a was based on the questionnaire design of the Kano-model (Kano et al., 1984) by asking the participants how they would feel if the manufacturers implement the before mentioned sustainability aspects. Forming the dysfunctional perspective, the participants were subsequently asked in Q4b how they would feel if the manufacturers would not implement these sustainability measures. To code statements within this section, the Kano questionnaire was used as a guide (Berger, 1993; Kano et al., 1984). The statements were evaluated with regard to their content, their responding context, and their respective tendency and were then assigned to the functional respectively dysfunctional items in the Kano questionnaire that best describe and summarize them. As consumers should not dislike a company’s sustainability efforts in general (Li et al., 2021) and due to the explicit question about required sustainability measures in Q3, reverse quality attributes were not identified in the present study. Coding anchors formed the foundation for correct and consistent coding and assignment, examples of which are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Examples of coding anchors to code the statements within functional and dysfunctional questions into the different Kano dimensions.

Functional (positive) questions
I like it that way.	- Good idea, really a cool idea, a really good thing, a positive point, a plus point, (very) nice, find it (very) good- That would be cool, it is really great, it is better, I would be very happy with that, thumbs up (finding it good), pleasant - “I would be willing to pay more for that.” - “This is an aspect that I would like the most.”
It must be that way.	Should, must Very/incredibly/the most important “That would naturally be useful.” In any case “You should find a counter solution to that.” “I would like to expect that.” “You should not just neglect that.” “That is a responsibility of the companies.”
I am neutral.	Never mind relatively indifferent “That would not bother me.”
Dysfunktional (negative) questions
I am neutral.	Not a must “I have never really paid attention to that.”
I could live with that.	Not that bad “That is not the end of the world.” “For this reason, it is difficult to see that (point) as a very important aspect.”
I dislike it that way.	Incomprehension, pity, (very) annoying, fatal, stupid, dumb, mad, bad, not good, sad “That would lead to the fact that I would buy such products less often.”

The statements and dimensions were coded on an individual level. To reassure a correct classification of the participants’ statements into the Kano dimensions, classification rules were defined:

1. If different quality dimension categories have been coded for the same sustainability measure, the overall classification is based on the most frequently coded category.

2. A verbal statement of the participants is weighted stronger than a non-verbal statement.

3. If no clear category can be assigned after applying rule 1 and 2 or the category assignment differs only marginally, the following evaluation rule is applied: M > O > A > I. This order is guided by the assumption that requirements that pose a high level of dissatisfaction if not fulfilled should be satisfied first (Berger, 1993; Matzler et al., 1996).

Finally, the participants were asked in Q5 which preferences and expectations they have regarding the communication of the manufacturers’ implemented sustainability measures, following and basing the coding procedure on the research design of Morsing and Schultz (2006).

The interview guide was pretested within the first FG, which resulted in only slight adjustments. In this context, from an open-ended functional and dysfunctional question with regard to all sustainability measures collected, after adapting the questionnaire, a functional and dysfunctional question was explicitly asked for each single sustainability measure to avoid biasing participants. The FG discussions lasted an average of 90 minutes. Only occasional minor comprehension problems arose due to internet connection difficulties during the FGs, which could be clarified by the moderator subsequent to the testimony or could be meaningfully inferred from the context.

Results

Reliability tests

In order to assess the quality of the coding performed, intercoder and intracoder reliability tests were conducted. Therefore, the Kappa (k_n) of Brennan and Prediger (1981) was assessed. Testing the intercoder reliability, seven randomly selected interview sections, consisting of 37 coded segments from all three FGs, were recoded by an independent researcher after the initial coding process. The intercoder reliability test resulted in the value k_n = 0.94, which can be assumed to be an “almost perfect” result (Landis & Koch, 1977). Approximately 12% of the text material was randomly selected and recoded for testing the intracoder reliability, as a minimum of ten per cent is suggested in literature for having a representative extraction of the data set (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). The intracoder reliability check resulted in k_n = 0.95, also highlighting the fit of the underlying coding scheme and the high quality of the coding process.

Beverage and food choice motives and recognition of brands

Addressing RQ1, the test subjects especially consider prices and discounts when buying groceries (11 nominations). Price discounts can determine product choices and even the place of purchase, as some participants state that they choose supermarkets and products based on weekly offers. Nevertheless, a healthy and balanced diet is just as important as the price for the test persons. Consequently, they pay attention that the beverages and food they buy contain only little sugar and additives. When not considering special offers, the participants try to develop shopping routines, especially to save time and because of greater trust in well-known products and brands (7 nominations). With respect to environmental sustainability concerns, the participants consider organic farming (6 nominations) and regionality, as well as seasonality (5 nominations combined) the most. Therefore, they rely on labels and information that attest organic cultivation or the origin of a product. Beverages and food products produced in Germany are preferred. Further statements outline that groceries need to be durable and fresh (6 nominations) and have a good taste (5 nominations). Other considerations when making grocery purchase decisions relate to convenience, appetite/desires, quality of the products, packaging, and the personal diet form (each 4 nominations). Especially with respect to packaging of beverages, some participants highlight that small package sizes, e.g., 0.33-liter bottles or cans, are preferred due to freshness and taste.

In the second part of the FGs, the selected beverage brands were presented. All real brands were recognized by every participant, only the ABInBev logo was unknown to some test subjects. After being shown ABInBev products, all participants claimed that they also were familiar with this brand. No respondent reported that they knew the fictitious brand Sunmento, indicating that the answers are honest and reliable.

Classification of consumer requirements on beverage manufacturers’ sustainability measures

From the open discussion about which environmentally-friendly measures participants demand from beverage companies, a total of 16 distinctive sustainability measures can be derived and assigned to the GRI categories as well as classified according to the Kano-based evaluation rules defined above (RQ2). With four assigned measures, the GRI category “waste” is the most frequent one and deals especially with product packaging and its reusability. Furthermore, the categories “biodiversity” and “emissions” consist of three sustainability measures each. Measures on “biodiversity” are particularly concerned with the responsible use of natural resources and the environment while measures categorized into “emissions” are about climate-neutral production and the consideration and avoidance of CO2-emissions by manufacturers. In addition, four discussed sustainability measures were not clearly assignable to a specific GRI category and were therefore coded into the derived category “Other environmentally-friendly measures.” Table 3 provides a detailed overview of the sustainability measures and coded statements into the Kano evaluation table, based on the GRI standards.

Table 3. Overall number of assignments of the sustainability measures into the individual Kano dimensions.

GRI standards	Attributes	Must-be (M)	One-dimensional (O)	Attractive (A)	Indifferent (I)	Total
301 (Materials)	Sustainable packaging	2	7	0	0	9
303 (Water and Effluents)	Respectful use of water as a resource	9 (10)	(4)	0	0	9 (14)
304 (Biodiversity)	Protection of rare animal species	2	(3)	0	0	2 (5)
	Production without deforestation	2 (3)	0	2	0	4 (5)
	Sustainable cultivation	3	4	0	0	7
305 (Emissions)	Climate neutral production	0	0	3	0	3
	Avoidance of unnecessary as well as implementation of reasonable transport routes (e.g., through the selection of regional business partners)	0	9 (10)	(2)	1	10 (13)
	Consider CO2-emissions	3	0	0	0	3
306 (Waste)	Use of degradable plastic bottles/lids	0	0	4	1	5
	Recycling and usage of recyclable glass and plastic bottles or cans	1	4	0	0	5
	(Increase) recyclability of labels/lids/crown caps; do not use unnecessary lids	5	2	0	0	7
	Integration of all bottles into a deposit system	1	1	3 (4)	0	5 (6)
Other environmentally-friendly measures (not explicitly assignable to a specific GRI standard)	Contribution to environmentally-friendly projects or environmental protection programs	0	1	8	1	10
	No market introduction of environmentally-harmful alternative products	2	0	0	0	2
	Market elimination of environmentally-harmful products	0	2	3	0	5
	Activities in the circular economy	3 (7)	0	0	0	3 (7)
Sum of coded quality attributes		7	4	5	0	16

Notes: The values with the highest number of codes for a Kano dimension per attribute were highlighted in bold. The values in brackets present the number of codes including these that are coded based solely on non-verbal statements.

Seven of the classified measures are identified as must-be quality attributes, representing the most frequently coded Kano dimension (44%), followed by attractive quality features (31%). One-dimensional quality criteria are identified in the least cases (25%).

It is noticeable that the responsible use of water as a resource is demanded by all three FGs and can overall be assigned to the must-be quality category. The recycling and the recyclability of packaging as well as all associated elements such as lids, labels, and crown caps accounts to the second most important must-be quality attribute and also includes the avoidance of unnecessary lids. In addition, the consideration of CO2-emissions, production without deforestation, activities in the circular economy, not introducing environmentally-harmful alternative products, and the protection of rare animal species can be classified as must-be quality requirements.

Classified as attractive quality attribute, and with that causing high consumer satisfaction, is the support of environmental protection programs or the contribution to environmentally-friendly projects, e.g., by investing a specific amount per bottle purchased. Also, the use of degradable plastic bottles can be clearly classified within the attractive quality dimension. While the use of reusable or deposit bottles alone can be derived as a sustainability measure from all three FGs, only including all bottles types into a deposit system can be classified as an attractive quality attribute. Furthermore, participants highly value a climate neutral production and the market elimination of environmentally-harmful products.

The participants’ statements with the highest number classified within the one-dimensional quality dimension are, firstly, the exclusive use of reasonable transport routes to avoid unnecessary emissions, e.g., through the selection of regional business partners and the use of plastic alternatives as well as a reduced design to offer more environmentally-friendly packaging. The recycling and usage of recyclable glass or plastic bottles and cans, as well as sustainable cultivation can also be classified as one-dimensional quality attributes.

Further statements with regard to Q4a and Q4b indicate that the participants are aware of the fact that implementing sustainability measures on the manufacturer side may lead to price increases. Nonetheless, some participants outline that they are willing to pay a price premium for beverages that exhibit the depicted attractive quality features. Moreover, the test subjects demand a more holistic sustainability approach from beverage manufacturers by not only addressing the environmental but also the social sustainability perspective, e.g., by ensuring fair working conditions.

Consumer requirements on the communication of sustainability-related information

Referring to RQ3, the participants especially demand additional sustainability-linked information on products or outer packages so it can be easily accessed. Furthermore, websites, social media accounts, and public press conferences or interviews were mentioned by the participants in decreasing order. Events organized by manufacturers can also be helpful to display information regarding sustainability in more detail.

Participants further require a stronger connection between products and online communication channels to enable two-way communication. They therefore argue that manufacturers should place QR codes on products or packaging that lead to their websites, where key sustainability information is clearly presented. Thus, most of the attendees would value short information videos about a product and its sustainable attributes. Manufacturers’ websites should further include more in-depth information for consumers who want to thoroughly investigate sustainability aspects of products.

In addition, environmental seals should provide clear evidence for the sustainability of a product and its attributes. Nonetheless, participants complain that the seal landscape is excessive and that manufacturers often use self-established labels to suggest a product’s sustainability. This means that individual seals or sustainability claims cannot be clearly interpreted, leading the test subjects to accuse many manufacturers of deliberately nontransparent communication and greenwashing. The participants outline that state regulations for seals could help to address these problems and make provided sustainability information more comparable. Independent institutions should further evaluate and verify this information. Additional information provided on owned social media channels of beverage selling companies, e.g., on Instagram, regarding the sustainability aspects of individual products would also generate added value for the respondents.

Discussion

With reference to RQ1, it has been demonstrated that young and highly-educated consumers explicitly consider organic, regional, and seasonal products when buying groceries and have detailed demands for sustainable practices and standards of beverage manufacturers. Nonetheless, prices and discounts guide buying decisions of the target group. The results therefore substantiate more general research approaches (BMEL, 2020, FACIT, 2020; Tseng, 2016) and show that young and highly educated consumers in particular take lower priced alternatives into account when buying beverages. However, it can be assumed that there is a certain trade-off between prices and sustainability aspects of products (Meyer & Simons, 2021), which is also highlighted in a higher WTP of the target group for products with the depicted attractive quality features. Manufacturers will have to find solutions to exploit consumers’ WTP and counteract the attractiveness of cheaper brands, which may be found in investing into and highlighting the one-dimensional and attractive quality attributes found in this study.

With regard to RQ2, the Kano-model has emerged as a suitable framework for classifying and evaluating sustainability measures within the beverage industry from a consumer perspective. The participants evaluated most of the discussed sustainability measures as must-be requirements. These findings stand in contrast to previous quantitative results within the food and service sector (Cheng et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021), which outline ecological attributes primarily as one-dimensional quality features. On the one hand, the diverging results could be explained by the fact that in the present analysis the Kano-model was applied in a qualitative study setting. This approach could have counteracted the disadvantages of quantitative Kano surveys (Madzík, 2018; Violante & Vezzetti, 2017) and thus led to more precise insights. On the other hand, the diverse findings might be explained by the selection of a young and highly-educated target group, which tends to be more environmentally-aware (Martinez-Carrasco Martínez et al., 2020) and is more inclined in sustainable purchase behavior (Chekima et al., 2016; Mihailescu et al., 2021; Oliver et al., 2023). Accordingly, it can be assumed that the examined participants have higher expectations on sustainability measures than the average consumer. In any case, to avoid consumer dissatisfaction within this specific target group, beverage manufacturers must especially reassure a responsible use of water during the production process, expand activities in the circular economy, and increase recyclability of outer packaging.

Sustainable and recyclable main packaging, sustainable cultivation, and the implementation of reasonable transport routes were classified as one-dimensional quality features, which should be taken as an incentive to invest more intensively into these sustainability measures. Yet, the implementation of reasonable transport routes was the most important one-dimensional quality feature for the participants, leading to the necessity for beverage manufacturers to gain regional business partners and shorten supply chains in particular.

Five attractive quality features could be extracted that cause high consumer satisfaction. The most valued sustainability measure is the (non-)monetary contribution to an environmentally-friendly project or program which is connected to the purchase of a beverage. Accordingly, strategic thrusts for beverage manufacturers could be the implementation of environmental protection programs or the reinforcement of partnerships with ecological third-party organizations to market products to young and highly-educated consumers. With that, special attention should be laid on the brand-cause-fit and the selection of partners (Ferraris et al., 2020; Onuoha & Nnenanya, 2017). Furthermore, a climate neutral production is highly valued by the FG participants. As beverage manufacturers in the EU are directly affected by international regulations (European Commission, 2021), they should adapt climate-neutral production and work processes as quickly as possible to meet consumer requirements and supranational specifications. Building on the findings, beverage manufacturers should invest in research regarding innovative packaging solutions, e.g., degradable plastic bottles, eliminate highly environmentally-harmful products, and integrate all produced bottles into a deposit system in the long term.

With regard to RQ3, the findings outline that the participants demand various communication channels, with packaging being the most important source for gathering sustainability-related information. Furthermore, the test subjects emphasized that a connection of packaging and online content via QR codes would offer direct added value, thus highlighting the role of two-way communication and involving consumer response (Han et al., 2022; Kyguolienë & Braziulytë, 2022; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). To meet consumer requirements, manufacturers should therefore apply QR codes on products which lead to websites, where sustainability-related information is clearly presented in order to effectively support young and highly-educated consumers within their purchase processes. Specifically, short video clips about a beverage’s sustainable attributes could help to evaluate a product properly.

During the discussion, participants focused solely on QR codes on packaging that lead to web pages. Other solutions like augmented reality applications that could enable a seamless link between online and offline channels (Craig, 2013) were disregarded, even though they could particularly help to present sustainable information in an understandable way and enable interactive two-way communication (Cosio et al., 2023; Han et al., 2022). It may be argued that this topic has not been considered because the test subjects were not yet familiar with this technology in a beverage context. The focus group discussions revealed that previous communication approaches and channels do not meet consumer requirements. As the target group has a high affinity for QR codes on packaging, manufacturers should also consider the possibility of providing sustainability information through augmented reality applications in the future.

In addition, FG participants frequently indicated that they cannot interpret and evaluate a beverage’s sustainability adequately, due to a lack of knowledge, an excessive seal landscape, and perceived greenwashing attempts from manufacturers. This underlines previous findings (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014; Polisetty et al., 2023) and should be seen as an appeal for not using self-introduced seals and labels. Instead, beverage manufacturers should rely on state or governmental seals to assure consumer understanding and demonstrate that implemented sustainability measures are trustworthy and reliable.

Limitations and future research

Even though new insights into the wishes and requirements of consumers in the beverage industry are provided, the study is subject to some limitations. Firstly, the insights are not generalizable as they built on a student sample within Germany. Since consumers within the beverage industry are diverse, the presented results must be confirmed for other target groups in order to gain a holistic view of beverage consumers’ needs and to derive effective marketing strategies. Nevertheless, the present study contributes to and extends existing literature and allows a further investigation within different target groups, product categories, industries, and nations.

Secondly, the applicability of the Kano-model within qualitative study settings can be challenged because very positive and negative consumer or customer experiences are difficult to discern (Mikulić & Prebežac, 2011). In the course of the present analysis, not all statements of the participants could be assigned to specific Kano items respectively dimensions, which is due to the qualitative study setting and data. As a potential solution, the authors recommend a mixed-method approach, in which required sustainability measures are discussed within FGs and the participants subsequently evaluate these measures via a quantitative Kano questionnaire. The subjects’ answers might then be discussed again within the FGs. Although the applicability of the Kano-model within qualitative studies is posing challenges, the authors introduced a novel approach for using the method. Future research can build on this structure and validate its eligibility.

Prospective studies should also consider a comparison of the effect of different sustainability features on WTP, as the participants indicate a higher price acceptance for numerous sustainable attributes of beverages. Previous research has solely demonstrated that individual ecological measures can raise WTP (Sogari et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2020), therefore making it necessary to contrast their actual influence within the beverage sector.

European consumers’ disapproval of manufacturers’ sustainability communication (SB Insight, 2022) can also be found in this study, as the test subjects do not trust sustainability claims provided on packaging or are unable to interpret them correctly. The participants would therefore prefer a connection of packaging and digital touchpoints to obtain more detailed information about the sustainability of beverages, e.g., by applying QR codes on products that direct them to the manufacturer’s homepage. The authors therefore derive that new communication technologies like augmented reality applications might fulfill the stated wishes of consumers through ensuring seamless transitions between packaging and augmented (online) content (Craig, 2013). As previous communication approaches do not seem to meet consumer requirements, especially the use and effect of augmented reality applications on consumer behavior and satisfaction in relation to the communication of sustainability measures should therefore be examined in more detail in future research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.