**European Consumers' Perceptions and Attitudes towards Non-Thermally Processed Fruit and Vegetable Products**

#### **Xiao Song 1 , Paola Pendenza 2 , María Díaz Navarro 3 , Elisa Valderrama García 4 , Rossella Di Monaco <sup>5</sup> and Davide Giacalone 1, \***


Received: 18 October 2020; Accepted: 20 November 2020; Published: 25 November 2020

**Abstract:** In order to meet the demand for high-quality fruit and vegetable (F&V) products, a wide variety of novel non-thermal processing (NTP) technologies are under development. This study used a qualitative focus group approach to investigate consumers' perception and attitudes towards non-thermally processed F&V products among young (18–30 years old) and middle-aged (45–60 y.o.) consumers across six European countries: Denmark, Germany, Italy, Serbia, Spain, and the Netherlands. Findings show that the expected benefits and social concerns are important factors which affect consumers' attitudes toward non-thermally processed F&V. Extending shelf-life, being healthier and more nutritious, and better hygiene and safety were important benefits, whilst impacts on product quality, safety risks, higher price and environmental costs were the concerns most often mentioned by participants. However, due to a lack of knowledge and trustworthy information sources, consumers have difficulties in assessing relevant benefits and risks. Targeted communication that could explicitly and efficiently reveal benefits and risks is highly recommended to enhance consumer awareness and trust. This may especially be needed to reach middle-aged consumers who showed less confidence in NTP, compared to young consumers. Consumers from Spain, Denmark, and the Netherlands appeared more interested in consuming NTP F&V, compared to Italy, Serbia, and Germany. These findings are expected to provide recommendations to better communicate non-thermally processed F&V with consumers in the EU.

**Keywords:** non-thermal processing technologies; consumer perception; fruit and vegetables; food processing

#### **1. Introduction**

Fruit and vegetables (F&V) are critical elements of a healthy diet supplying essential nutrients to humans [1]. The increase in consumers' attention to the "healthy" food attributes (e.g., "freshness" and "naturalness") and the overall sustainability of processing technologies has contributed to a growing demand for non-thermally processed F&V [2].

Food processing technologies are improved on a continuous basis. Currently, a wide variety of non-thermal processing technologies (NTP) are under development [3,4]. During the processing

of F&V, NTP use mild temperatures and minimal amounts of physical and chemical processing aids. Compared to conventional thermal technologies which use invasive temperature or treatments (e.g., thermal pasteurization), NTP are expected to better preserve the original quality of food products and by-products, such as maintain the nutritional value, freshness and some other sensory attributes of F&V products for a longer time, and reduce the use of added preservatives [5,6]. Moreover, the extension of shelf-life could potentially help with reducing food waste for both households and producers [7–9].

While scientists may applaud the progress of food technologies, consumers are known to have more conservative attitudes towards food processing [10]. Consumer choices are influenced not only by the intrinsic features of the product, but also by the production characteristics, including the way the products have been processed [10]. For some particular processing methods, some consumers have developed preferences or dislikes (e.g., irradiation) based on their vague understanding of these technologies [11–13].

A number of factors are known to influence consumers' perceptions of food technologies. For instance, consumers' perceived benefits and risks were found to affect consumers' attitudes towards new food technologies [6,14,15]. Consumers paid special attention to the effects of processing on food quality, safety, price, and naturalness [6,16]. Due to their lack of knowledge and familiarity with food technologies, consumers have been reported to rely on simple heuristics, such as the affect heuristic, natural-is-better heuristic, and trust heuristic, when evaluating them [3]. Moreover, individual-related factors, such as food technology neophobia level [14], sense of disgust evoked by the unfamiliar, and cultural values, further influence the acceptance of a technology [3]. These factors could lead to limited confidence and lack of acceptance in non-thermally processed products and difficulties in associating NTP with possible benefits or risks, especially when the benefits and risks were hard to be directly experienced by consumers [3,10,14].

Nevertheless, from a consumer policy standpoint, consumer-oriented communication is important to enhance social awareness and trust in products processed with novel technologies [16]. Interestingly, sufficient communication of the processing information has found to positively influence consumers' perception of novel processing methods, especially when expressed by independent scientists, consumer organizations, or food safety authorities [6,14,17,18].

In light of the growing interest in mild processing for shelf-life extension and food waste reduction, this study aims to better understand consumers' perception and attitudes towards non-thermally processed F&V, drawing on data from six European countries: Denmark, Germany, Italy, Serbia, Spain, and the Netherlands. Moreover, consumers' perceptions towards the potential effects of interactive NTP on household F&V waste reduction were also investigated. Findings from this study are expected to provide recommendations to better communicate non-thermally processed F&V with consumers in the EU.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Participants*

In total, 12 focus groups were conducted in six European countries with 94 participants. In order to obtain a pan-European outlook of consumers' perception and attitudes, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Serbia, Spain, and the Netherlands were chosen for this research. In each country, two age groups were addressed: young-age (YA, 18–30 years old) and middle-aged (MA, 45–60 years old) population. These two groups were selected as target groups due to their known differences in purchasing power and attitudes towards novel food products and technologies [19,20]. Besides age and nationality, participants were screened by using the following criteria: (a) being responsible for grocery shopping; (b) not affiliated with the project; (c) not working professional with food and nutrition. Finally, each focus group had a balanced number of female and male participants. Table 1 shows the participants' basic demographic information on a country by country basis.


**Table 1.** Demographic information of the participants in the six participating countries.

\* Number of participants for YA focus group and MA focus group, YA = 18–30 years old, MA = 45–60 years old.

#### *2.2. Procedures*

All the focus groups (FGs) were conducted between November 2019 and February 2020. The same protocol was followed throughout the discussion to ensure consistency across all six countries (Table 2). FGs were conducted in the native languages of the participating countries. Each group discussion lasted about 90 to 120 min. Both video and audio recordings were collected for the subsequent data analysis.



Before the FG discussion, participants received and signed an informed consent form describing the aim of the project and the use of the data, as well as a short questionnaire designed to collect their basic demographic information. The moderator started the group discussion with a brief introduction to the overall project and the procedure of the ensuing discussion. Then, the participants introduced themselves. Afterwards, the moderator followed the group interview protocol (Table 2) to discuss the themes one by one.

Participants' perceptions towards NTP (theme 2) were discussed in three stages. Firstly, the moderator asked participants if they knew any F&V processing technologies and whether they've heard about NTP before. Then the moderator introduced the NTP concept briefly as follows: "*NTP use mild temperatures and limited amounts of physical processing aids to increase shelf-life and keep the nutrients, freshness and sensory attributes of F&V products for longer time.*" Afterwards, participants' perceptions and attitudes towards NTP were further collected.

In the second stage, more detailed explanations of some representative NTP were presented to consumers, supported by PowerPoint slides. The moderator summarized the NTP into categories of sanitization, preservation, stabilization, and extraction and gave examples for each category: ultrasounds, electrolyzed water, plasma-activated water, blue light, and UV light for sanitization; bioactive coating, active and intelligent packaging for preservation; ultrasounds and high-pressure processing for stabilization; ultrasounds, pulsed electric field, and membrane filtration for extraction of bioactive compounds in F&V. In-depth discussions about participants' perceptions towards NTP were followed, focusing on expected benefits and concerns regarding the NTP. The underlying reasons which caused the above concerns and expectations were explored at the end of stage 2.

The last stage focused on participants' willingness to purchase non-thermally processed F&V and their expected communication approaches of the processing information provided by different sources.

#### *2.3. Data Analysis*

Recordings of the FG discussion from the six countries were translated and transcribed into English text. NVivo 12 (QSR International, Warrington, UK) was used to code the transcriptions based on the standard content analysis procedures [21–24]. Various codes were compared and sorted into factors and categories based on similarities and differences, addressing the corresponding themes. Results are presented with a focus on the most recurrent stated factors and discussed both in general as well as based on the participants' demographic background. Representative quotes of participants from different countries are included to further support and illustrate the relevant claims and findings.

#### **3. Results**

In accordance with the focus group themes (Table 2) the results are sequentially presented in the following order: (1) participants' preferred quality attributes of F&V; (2) participants' knowledge and perceptions toward NTP; (3) participants' use of product information at the point of purchase; (4) household storage and potential effects of interactive NTP on the waste of F&V.

#### *3.1. Preferred Features of Fruit and Vegetables at Point of Purchase*

In Figure 1, the pie chart illustrates the frequency distribution of the factors that influenced the purchase of F&V products, based on the responses from all 94 participants collected at the discussion of theme 1.

The factors can be summarized into three major categories: (1) internal product features, such as sensory quality (31%), seasonality (13%), origin (12%), naturalness (10%) and nutritional value (8%); (2) external product features; and (3) personal habits and individual needs of consumers.

With regards to sensory quality, participants paid most attention to product appearance and taste. Accordingly, product appearance was mentioned as the first cue for freshness for participants. Moreover, participants reported that they sometimes tried to smell and touch the products to tell their freshness. Local products or products originating from areas with a good reputation and in the right season(s) were preferred. Participants generally thought local and seasonal products had a more natural taste and were more environmental-friendly. Many participants expressed a specific preference towards organic products and concerns over whether the products contain additives and preservatives. Compared to fresh produce, some participants tried to avoid purchasing F&V derived juices and smoothies due to the sugar and additive content in some industrial products, and instead preferred to make their own juices and smoothies. Some participants from Denmark mentioned a

specific preference for products with the green-keyhole label [25], which is a Nordic certification for healthy foods.

**Figure 1.** Frequency distribution of factors considered at point of purchase.

There were some interesting discussions about the correlation between high quality and a beautiful appearance. While some participants believed that a good appearance is an important indicator of freshness, others declared that they were less willing to buy products which look "too perfect", because they believed that too beautiful products were less natural and therefore may not taste good, as illustrated by the following quotes:

*"The inconsistency of apple size is more appealing to me. When I went to Korea, every apple was exactly the same size and that is too perfect."* (23 years old, male, Danish)

*"Things that are too beautiful always hide some imperfections."* (52 years old, female, Italian)

Price (9%) was the most frequently mentioned external product feature, followed by others including brand, package type (e.g., packaging materials), and the Fairtrade label (others, 7%). Participants from Denmark and Germany seemed more willing to purchase products with fair-trade certifications.

Because of differences in income and individual concerns, price was used differently as a quality cue by consumers. Some perceived products offered at particularly low prices to be of poor quality, whereas other participants preferred lower-priced products if there are no discernible differences in quality, compared to the more expensive ones, as the following quotes illustrate:

*"The low-priced juices are full of preservatives."* (26 years old, male, Italian)

*"A medium quality product must have an adequate price because no one gives you anything good for free. If there is a good relationship between price, quality, origin and authenticity, even if it is not branded, the product is acceptable for me."* (52 years old, female, Italian).

*"I will take the cheaper one first, unless the other one has something recognizable at first glance, it has the organic label on it, or something like this. Otherwise I don't have the patience to compare."* (22 years old, female, German)

*"As a student, I just prefer products that are cheaper."* (23 years old, male, Dutch)

Participants' personal habits (10%) played an important role in their F&V choices as well. Some participants preferred more convenient products, e.g., vegetables in cans, due to lack of time or interest in cooking, and paid less attention to nutrients damage or taste. Moreover, individual shopping frequency and plans determined choices of the package size and ripeness status of F&V, etc.:

*"As for vegetables, we consume a lot of canned ones. It is more convenient than cooking the vegetables every day. You go down to the supermarket and buy several jars, and you can preserve them better."* (27 years old, male, Spanish)

#### *3.2. Knowledge and Perceptions toward Non-Thermal Processing Technologies*

The discussion of theme 2 was conducted in three stages (Section 2.2). The first two stages were focused on participants' knowledge and perceptions towards NTP.

#### 3.2.1. Initial Knowledge and Perceptions towards NTP

At the first discussion stage, participants reported a lack of knowledge regarding the processing of F&V products in general. Most of them showed concern about what happens during cultivation, with frequent mention of pesticides. With respect to the post-harvest processing, participants thought that some F&V products were processed in order to extend the shelf-life and enhance the quality, but save for a few exceptions (e.g., a few participants mentioned that they have heard that some F&V are coated with wax or sprayed with preservatives) participants did not have much specific knowledge. With respect to the concept of non-thermal processing technologies (NTP), almost all participants had never heard of it, with both quotes and their facial expressions confirming a complete lack of knowledge.

#### 3.2.2. Participants' Concerns and Expected Benefits of NTP

At the second stage, after being introduced by the moderators to some of the most representative NTP, a few of the participants declared that they were familiar with the concepts of some technologies, for instance, blue light and ultrasound, but not in the context of food processing.

Moreover, participants were found to have various perceptions towards different NTP types after the introduction of representative NTP technologies. Some participants found some of the NTP techniques were relatively easier to understand and more acceptable, for instance, light-based technologies and active packaging.

*"Washing is the least bad* . . . *coating is the worst for me, you literally put it in your mouth so I wonder how good it could be."* (21 years old, female, Dutch)

Some participants felt hesitant, or even outright objected, to purchase non-thermally processed F&V. The pie chart in Figure 2 illustrates the frequency distribution of the concerns of non-thermally processed products, based on the responses from all 94 participants at the second discussion stage.

Participants' concerns regarding damages to the sensory quality of products were most frequently stated (23%). Accordingly, they stated that they would be more open to consuming non-thermally processed products if compared to conventional processing technologies, NTP did not cause loss of taste and aroma while maintaining the nutritious value and naturalness as close to the original (non-processed) products as possible:

*"The taste is very important. I have lived in South America and the bananas there are tastier. While they have to come all the way from there to our supermarkets, you need this kind of technology."* (23 years old, male, Dutch)

*"Everyone's producing them now not to have taste and smell, but to look pretty. I don't want to look at it, I want to eat it."* (46 years old, male, Serbian)

**Figure 2.** Frequency distribution of participants' concerns towards non-thermal processing technologies (NTP) and NTP processed fruits and vegetables (F&V).

Regarding safety and health-related concerns, even though some of the participants acknowledged that compared to conventional technologies, NTP could reduce the use of chemical additives and preservatives in the final products, they were worried that it may introduce other harmful compounds into the products:

*"I think it's important to say that these procedures assure me that I won't get any kind of disease or any kind of bacteria by ingesting them."* (27 years old, male, Spanish)

*"How can that a*ff*ect my health?"* (26 years old, female, Serbian)

*"* . . . *look not only at profit but also at the good of the consumer, if you do not think that the product is intended for use by consumers, it could be dangerous to health."* (52 years old, male, Italian)

Moreover, some participants stated that if non-thermally processed F&V products were much more expensive than conventional processed or non-processed products, they would be less interested in them:

*"If it cleans 99% of the bacteria instead of 90%, then I don't know if it's worth for me to pay 10 or 20 cents more."* (23 years old, male, German)

Participants were concerned about energy costs and environmental impacts of NTP, for instance, whether the amount of water needed in the mild washing techniques would be higher than that of conventional washing. Interestingly, quite a few participants declared that they prefer to buy loose F&V than products with plastic packaging to reduce the environmental pollution that plastics can create, as exemplified by the following quotes:

*"The recyclability of the packaging matters as well."* (25 years old, female, Danish)

*"Maybe (novel) water washing leads to the use of larger amount of water, but with the use of lights you can use less water and therefore improve the fight against waste from this point of view."* (26 years old, male, Italian)

Moreover, a few participants associated extended shelf-life with loss of naturalness and nutrients and wondered whether too many chemical preservatives or too much treatment had been applied:

*"It's not normal that something that should last for 2–3 weeks actually lasts 2 months."* (46 years old, female, Serbian)

*"* . . . *with the aim of preserving its freshness to make it more durable over time, but compromising its nutritional characteristics and taste is not natural."* (23 years old, female, Italian)

However, as illustrated in Figure 3, the extension of shelf-life in a "less invasive" way (25%) was one of the most important benefits expected by participants, compared to conventional processing. Moreover, they expressed positive expectations for the potential effect of NTP in the reduction of food waste due to the extended shelf-life, which could possibly enhance their interest in non-thermally processed products:

*"When it comes to shelf-life, we may have less food wasted, I think it's an important item."* (55 years old, male, Dutch)

*"There are definitely benefits with the processing technologies. You do it for a reason. You do it to get rid of bacteria and germs to extend the shelf-life* . . . *you throw out less food and be able to ship it further over longer distance."* (25 years old, male, Danish)

**Figure 3.** Frequency distribution of participants' expected benefits of NTP and NTP processed F&V.

Participants expected non-thermally processed F&Vs could be healthier and more nutritious (17%) than conventionally processed or non-processed products, due to the reduction of chemical preservatives and better maintenance of natural nutrients. Moreover, it was expected that non-thermally processed F&V could be more hygienic and therefore be safer to consume (17%), compared to non-processed F&V:

*"Perhaps the preserving of nutrients."* (25 years old, male, German)

*"When I hear the word 'mild', I'm assuming it'll use much less chemicals* . . . *and other additives."* (58 years old, male, German)

*"These technologies give me an idea of disinfected, clean food, probably without microbes."* (56 years old, male, Italian)

Some participants expected that NTP could be better in the protection of products' sensory quality (13%) and be more environmental-friendly (13%), comparing with conventional processing. A few participants regarded NTP as less invasive and more natural technologies in general:

*"If they are able to enhance its taste and texture and everything, then that is exciting."* (52 years old, female, Danish)

*"We even buy those products that are "heavily processed" already, as opposed, if it is processed by some mild version, I would probably prefer it."* (30 years old, female, Serbian)

At the end of stage 2, after thorough discussions of the factors which influenced participants' perception of NTP and non-thermally processed F&V, the underlying reasons which caused the above concerns and expectations were explored. Some participants declared that their lack of knowledge and awareness due to the lack of complete and trustworthy information sources made them feel less confident in NTP and non-thermally processed products:

*"I am confused about what I don't know."* (26 years old, female, Danish)

*"I don't feel I have the knowledge to choose. I don't know how to."* (52 years old, female, Danish)

*"Knowing about technologies, a person is more confident about what to buy."* (22 years old, male, Italian)

3.2.3. Individual and Regional Differences

Participants could roughly be divided into four groups based on their various perceptions and interests towards NTP stated at the second stage of theme 2. The "accepting" group consisted of participants who were interested in NTP and willing to purchase non-thermally processed F&V with some prerequisites, such as that they caused no changes to the product property or added no chemicals into the products. They regarded NTP as a sign of scientific and technical progress that could improve F&V quality and reduce food waste in general:

*"It is ok as it is more natural and has no addition of the chemicals and stu*ff*, like the washing and lights."* (25 years old, male, Danish)

*"I just think the science is very cool."* (25 years old, female, Danish)

The "neutral" group had limited interest in knowing NTP but were willing to purchase the treated products as long as the processing technology had been thoroughly tested and the quality of products was good and certified by trustworthy sources:

*"I honestly don't mind processing. Just give me good, nice tasting apples, even if they've been really processed."* (23 years old, male, Danish)

*"It depends on how it really a*ff*ects the product, if it is just to preserve it or if it can change some properties of the products, etc."* (54, female, Spanish)

The "rejecting" group had neither interest nor trust in NTP and were not willing to purchase F&V treated by NTP or any kind of processing technology. They regarded NTP as a marketing ploy and preferred non-processed, natural products.

*"The more a product is closer to the original status, without any processing, the better."* (22 years old, male, Serbian)

Finally, there were some participants who belonged to the "mixed feeling" group since they raised both concerns and expected benefits towards NTP.

Additionally, regional differences within the EU, as well as differences between demographics, were identified (Tables 3 and 4). Overall, young participants appeared less worried and showed more interest in NTP processed F&V products, compared to middle-aged participants. "Healthier

and more nutritious" was the most important benefit expected by middle-aged participants (23%, data not shown). They felt more worried about the loss in sensory quality (28%) and nutrients (9%), compared to the young participants (17% and 2%, respectively). By contrast, "extension of shelf-life" attracted young participants the most (32%), whilst they had higher concerns towards the increased price (25%) and safety risks (25%), compared to the middle-aged participants (17% and 20%, respectively). The middle-aged participants in four countries (Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, and Serbia) had more concerns towards the application of NTP, compared to the middle-aged participants in Italy and Germany.

**Table 3.** Relative frequency (%) of concerns and expected benefits stated by young (18–35) and middle-aged (45–60) participants in all countries.


Note: Reported figures represent the percentages of concern statements and benefit statements among all the concern and benefit statements claimed by young and middle-aged participants.



Note: Reported figures represent the percentages of concern statements and benefit statements among all the concern and benefit statements claimed by female and male participants.

Some gender differences were found in individual countries and specific benefits and concerns. Females from Spain and Serbia expressed fewer concerns towards NTP, whilst females from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Italy had more concerns, compared to males. Female participants were more interested in "better hygiene and safety" (22%) and "more natural" (17%), compared to male participants (13% and 8%, respectively). Male participants expected "extension of shelf-life" (33%) the most and showed more concerns to the price (24%) and loss in sensory aspects (24%), compared to female participants (17%, 19%, and 20%, respectively).

With respect to differences across countries (Figure 4), participants from Spain and Denmark expressed fewer concerns and more expected benefits towards NTP, and appeared more open to learning how it works, compared to Serbia and Germany:

*"Suspicious. What is the actual process like? Will that a*ff*ect my health and how?"* (22 years old, male, Serbian)

*"I think they are mostly focused on having it look pretty."* (28 years old, female, Serbian)

*"I just think the science is very cool. It was washed with this water technology and then we put it through some blue light. Then we have smart vegetables* . . . *wow, this is science!"* (25 years old, female, Danish)

*"I don't know if it [i.e., the processing method, A*/*N] is important knowledge for me and I think I would rather trust the government. Living in Denmark, if the producers are allowed to produce and sell it, I would trust that I can just buy it without any risk."* (57 years old, male, Danish)

**Figure 4.** Percentages of concerns and expected benefits stated by participants in different countries.

#### 3.2.4. Consumer Communication Aspects

At the third stage of theme 2, participants' expectations towards communication of the processing information were discussed. Most statements focused on the type of language, the sources of information, the focuses of information, the communication channels, and the need for labels showing endorsement or certification.

Some participants hoped to better understand NTP by themselves and expect that packaging and social media could explicitly reveal the information in an efficient way, using language that average consumers can easily understand. On the contrary, other participants would rather let the experts and researchers decide what is the good and safe processing method and trust the products with relevant certifications in the market. They expected that the information sources could be trustworthy, monitored by relevant authorities, confirmed by experts, and in compliance with rules and regulations. Furthermore, many participants consequently stated that if the effects of NTP on both the products and human health have been thoroughly studied and NTP have been widely used in the F&V industry, they would feel more confident in consuming non-thermally processed F&V in their daily life:

*"I would be 90% sure if it has a certification."* (26 years old, female, Italian)

*"I would definitely not trust it if the benefits information was from the producer's side. They have an interest in selling more apples. So it would need to come from, for instance, an external source for it to be credible enough."* (25 years old, male, Danish)

*"I am not an expert. I can believe that mild processing is useful, but there must be a predisposed institute to confirm that it is a positive process."* (26, male, Italian)

#### *"If it is a widely used thing, then I would feel safer."* (52, female, Italian)

Some participants declared they lacked time or interest to go in-depth by themselves, thus, they expected that product labels could just include a certification logo or a few words to directly highlight the benefits and advantages of non-thermally processed products compared to conventional or non-processed products. Participants also suggested that a QR code could be put on the label so that consumers who want to learn more about the processing details could just scan and explore by themselves. Some participants mentioned that except for using labels, signs, and packages to convey the information, short videos shown on in-store displays could also be an optional channel to explain NTP to consumers. Furthermore, a few participants mentioned that supermarkets could have tasting corners for consumers to taste non-thermally processed F&V, with staff to introduce relevant information to consumers, which they believed could help consumers both understand NTP and be less skeptical if the taste is good:

*"If put the information on a package or a product, I would not read it* . . . *maybe put it somewhere else, a website or a QR code. If someone really wants to know and wants to go deeper, they can have that information."* (27 years old, male, Spanish)

*"I wouldn't give it too much thought on how it was processed."* (57 years old, male, Danish)

#### *3.3. Use of Packaging Information at Point of Purchase*

In general, for fresh fruit and vegetable produces, participants paid attention to the information of product origin, date of packaging, recyclability of the package, and the presence of relevant certifications, e.g., organic labeling. Regarding F&V-derived juices and smoothies, participants gave priority to the ingredients of the products, especially the presence of additives and the sugar content, followed by the nutrient table, dates of packaging and expiration, storage instructions, recyclability of the package, and the presence of certifications. Participants who were allergic to some food compounds usually checked the allergens information.

In addition to the conventional information on the package, some participants mentioned that they would like to have information sources on the entire product value chain, from its production until it reached consumers' hands. Some participants showed interest in knowing a detailed description of the origin of the product, and the duration from its production until it was put on the shelf. Moreover, participants who were especially interested in sustainability issues would like to know the carbon footprint of the product during the planting and processing, compared to the average carbon footprint of similar products. Most participants expected easy access to such kind of information through scanning QR codes, e.g.:

*"I looked at the organic jam and one of them had a small QR code on it, which you can scan easily. You'll see a map there. My jam came from the farmer Müller and therefore it costs 2–3 euros more. And I was so interested and decided to buy it immediately* . . . *I have my mobile phone in my hand anyway* . . . *I'm more involved and I found the website was very clear and well presented, much easier than looking on the long labels on the back of the package."* (22 years old, female, German)

#### *3.4. Household Storage and Waste Reduction*

Generally, participants did not have any formal knowledge regarding storage; rather, most stated that they followed the storage ways of their parents or simply replicate the same storage conditions as the supermarkets or grocery shops from where they bought the products. For fresh products, only a few participants declared that they used to check the storage instruction from the label or searched online to confirm whether they chose the best storage methods. Accordingly, the participants' behavior in terms of F&V storing was not always compliant with recommendations: for instance, some participants stored potatoes and onions inside the fridge.

Participants declared that only a limited quantity of F&V was thrown away, in general. Participants discarded different kinds of F&V, mainly due to the sensory decays of the F&V. Sometimes, they made mistakes in shopping plans and bought more amount than needed, or just forgot what they have at home beforehand. Some participants, most notably YA who lived alone, complained about the package size of some F&V being too big for their consumption needs, but they had no choices of smaller packages or loose ones.

Many participants reported increased awareness of the societal costs of F&V waste and had made some active efforts to reduce it, for example by making better shopping plans. Some used the extra amount to bake cakes, make jams and soups, or simply freeze some kinds of F&V to make smoothies or for other use in the future. Some participants mentioned that they used some apps or websites to make recipes for their leftover F&V at home.

*"I think the perception or the knowledge and consciousness about food waste has increased. If I see myself ten years ago or just five years ago, I threw out foods without thinking* . . . *But now with this focus on food waste, I feel much more guilty when I throw out foods."* (55 years old, female, Danish)

Participants had suggestions for the industry as well. Better possibilities for purchasing loose products and/or smaller packages were expected. Supermarkets could lower the price of less fresh F&V. Producers could also suggest some recipes for their F&V in different ripeness status, by printing in their package or hiding in some QR codes.

Interactive packaging with freshness indicator attracted interest from some participants, especially for the packaging of products whose ripeness is hard to tell by touching and/or looking. They saw the advantages from the convenience, food sanitation, and waste reduction point of view, e.g.,

*"Melon, pineapple, avocado* . . . *in products that are more complicated to know if they are ripe or not at first sight. If you have to touch them, I think it's better to put the indicator."* (27 years old, male, Spanish)

#### **4. Discussion**

To meet consumers' demand for safe F&V products of high quality, a wide variety of non-thermal processing technologies are under development [3,4]. In this study, focus groups were used to explore factors that influenced consumers' perceptions of non-thermally processed F&V products, comparing across six European countries: Denmark, Italy, Germany, Serbia, Spain, and the Netherlands. Moreover, in order to develop guidelines for the successful introduction and consumer communication of non-thermally processed F&V products, additional topics were discussed, including consumers' use of and expected food processing technology information and other packaging information at the point of purchase and during household storage. Our findings showed that from the consumers' point of view, even objectively less hazardous processes like non-thermal, mild processing could engender concerns which, if unattended, may override the benefits that the technologies could bring.

Lack of knowledge among the participants was one of the major impediments to their acceptance. Participants were found to largely rely on affect heuristic and trust heuristic when building their perceptions towards NTP [3]. When asked to evaluate the risks or benefits of NTP, participants associated with unknown food processing technologies with various food hazards, which evoked feelings of dread and influenced their benefit perceptions or risk judgments. The difficulties in assessing relevant benefits and risks could further impede the establishment of social trust and pose a barrier to the market introduction of non-thermally processed F&V [26]. One way that participants coped with their lack of knowledge is to rely on their trust in familiar brands or certified labels to reduce the complexity of making choices [18]. Regarding the individual-factors, disgust sensitivity and food culture and safety values were found to further influence the acceptance of NTP and explained the individual differences among participants [3]. Furthermore, consumers are grocery shopping with an ever-expanding perspective on overall health and well-being [19,25]. In addition to health, consumers' desires for taste, food safety, affordability, convenience, and clear labeling and transparency were identified [6,14,17], which explained the major expected benefits and concerns stated in our focus groups. The increasing environmental awareness and sustainable thinking among consumers help them associate NTP with environmental cost [10,27], which was found to be one of the important factors that influenced consumers' perceptions towards non-thermally processed F&V.

Consumer-oriented sufficient communication and early involvement of target consumers could contribute to a higher level of social trust in NTP and the likelihood of market success [4].

#### *4.1. Recommendations on Development of Successful Consumer Communication*

To counteract the effect of concerns about NTP on consumers' food choice, consumer communication and education from technology development till product launch are highly recommended [16].

Our results revealed many factors that may affect the success of consumer communication with regard to NTP and influences caused by NTP, including trust in the information source, content and focus of the information, message development in terms of language and style, and communication channels.

### • *Information source*

If consumers do not trust the information source, the benefits may not be convincing. Consumers expect that information sources should be trustworthy, monitored by relevant authorities, confirmed by experts from third parties, and in compliance with rules and regulations. This finding fits with research by Siegrist [14], who reported that when benefits are endorsed by independent organizations or scientists, the communication is more likely to positively influence consumers' interests in consuming food products processed by novel technologies.

### • *Information content*

Participants showed that they were hesitant to accept novel NTP mainly because they were not aware of any potential safety or health risks and clear benefits, due to lack of information. They expected that the public could be informed about the proven safety and benefits of NTP in a sufficient way, based on which they could be more likely to accept a novel food technology. This finding is in line with previous research reporting that tangible benefits based on consumer needs and expectations could reduce misunderstanding and positively affect consumers' perceptions and purchase willingness [4,28].

For the development of communication messages, it is recommended to focus on the most important perceived benefits of NTP included enhanced quality and safety, extension of shelf-life, lower environmental impacts, and maintenance of naturalness and nutrients. These findings are also in line with previous studies [10,27,29–31] and could be emphasized in consumer communication and marketing campaigns as appropriate. It should be noted that compared to benefits for consumers, industry benefits may not have a significant effect on consumers' purchase intention [14].

The extension of shelf-life is one of the major goals as well as benefits of NTP, which could potentially contribute to the reduction of F&V waste. Even though this benefit was expected by most participants in this study, some participants associated longer shelf-life with the addition of preservatives and loss of taste and naturalness. This finding should be of concern to marketers regarding the communication of benefits related to shelf-life.

### • *Language style*

Companies should not assume that consumers may view specific technical terms the same way as they do [26]. In the past, consumers were regarded as passive receivers of product information. Yet, consumers were often found to misunderstand or misinterpret the information [4,14,27].

With regards to communication of non-thermally processed products, it should be of concern to marketers of non-thermally processed F&V that the phrase "non-thermal processing technologies" and "minimal processing" may have negative utility for some consumers. Indeed, NTP may only be regarded as a benefit by food technologists and nutritionists who are aware of the negative effects of thermal processing on food sensory quality and nutritional value [16,26]. By contrast, our findings indicate that for some consumers, NTP may be received as a marketing trick to increase the product price. Moreover, some consumers rejected F&V processed by any method because they saw them as less natural and would rather purchase F&V without any preservation technology. Thus, more studies need to be devoted to exploring the meaning of technically oriented terms before applying these terms in consumer communication.

### • *Communication channels*

A variety of communication channels, such as product packages, in-store displays, leaflets, manufacturers' websites or other forms of social media, were mentioned by participants of the study and could be adopted by marketers. Participants suggested that a barcode could be put on the label so that consumers who want to learn more about the processing details could just scan and explore by themselves. Short videos (e.g., 1 min length) could be displayed in-store to explain NTP to consumers. In addition, participants showed specific interest in product tasting, which is shown to reduce the hesitance of consumers to trial purchase products processed by new technologies [26,28].

### • *Communication targeted at di*ff*erent consumers*

Specific communication messages are recommended to reach targeted consumers of different socio-demographic backgrounds. The study suggests that different age groups may have different perceptions towards non-thermally processed F&V. Specifically, the middle-aged groups had relatively more concerns about the application of NTP, compared with the young participants. Although this cannot be inferred conclusively from a qualitative study, this finding is consistent with previous studies [19,20] which revealed that younger generations are relatively less neophobic with regard to novel technologies and food products.

Moreover, cross-cultural variation was observed in participants' views across the six European countries. It seemed that participants from Spain, Denmark, and the Netherlands were more interested in NTP and more open to learning how it works, compared to Italy, Serbia, and Germany. This might partly depend on the food culture and the status of food safety in different countries [3,32–34]. The importance of various basic values such as food safety and naturalness may differ across cultures and influence consumers' attitudes and behaviours in different ways [3]. Moreover, consumers' confidence in their national food safety control systems varied from country to country [32,34], which might lead to the differences of confidence towards F&V processed by novel technologies. Again, however, the results are based on a qualitative study so further research, such as a large-scale consumer study, is advised to further confirm the existence of these cross-cultural differences.

#### *4.2. Usage of Product Information*

Besides information on NTP specifically, information associated with product quality and environmental impacts caught the most attention, including product origin, date of packaging and expiration, presence of certifications, ingredients and nutrients table (for F&V derived products), storage instructions, and recyclability of the package.

In addition to the conventional traceability information (e.g., origin, date of packaging), participants who were especially interested in sustainable development wished to know more environmental information (e.g., based on life cycle assessment) of F&V products. The literature suggests that the perceived environmental friendliness, inferable from traceability information, enhanced the perceived quality of food products [35], and our findings confirm that. Consumers prefer the simple and direct presentation of traceability information, which they can easily find and understand [36]. For instance, participants in our study preferred carbon labels that allow comparisons of carbon footprints across

products, and QR codes that could present the key points of a product's life cycle, which are consistent with findings reported by Hartikainen [37] and Tarjan [38], respectively.

However, it should be noted that sustainability labeling, at present, may still not play a significant role in the majority of consumers' food choices. Moreover, due to social desirability bias, the extent to which consumers' general concern about food sustainability can be turned into actual behavior is unknown [39,40]. Further studies could focus on the effects of sustainability labels on consumer perceptions and ways to promote environmentally sustainable food purchases, which could contribute to food waste reduction eventually [39].

Providing information on storage and cooking instructions was found to be potentially beneficial to F&V waste reduction through influencing consumers' household behaviors. Our results showed that participants' knowledge of F&V storage was not always optimal. Storage as well as cooking instructions, e.g., usage of F&V in different ripeness levels, could be inspiring to consumers.

#### *4.3. Household F&V Waste Reduction and Interactive NTP*

Consumers' role within the issue of food waste is especially crucial, as recently emphasized by the new "Farm to Fork" strategy of the EU Commission [41]. Food surplus and wastage at the purchase and household stages are observed in Europe [24,42], accounting for approximately 35% of all food wasted [43]. In our study, most participants reported that due to their increased awareness of food waste and its costs on society, they have been making different efforts to reduce F&V waste and achieved a decrease in household F&V waste. Consumers expected more support from the industry and retailers to further reduce household waste. For instance, a better choice for loose F&V, and package sizes appropriate for their consumption needs [44].

It could be interesting to further explore the effects of interactive NTP (e.g., intelligent packaging with freshness-indicator) on household F&V waste reduction. Participants saw the benefits of freshness-indicator with respect to convenience, food safety, and waste reduction aspects, especially for products for which it is difficult to tell ripeness from appearance. However, it was reported that freshness indicators and other similar intelligent devices might push consumers to purchase only newly displayed foodstuffs and increase the number of unsold items [45,46]. The effects of intelligent packaging on consumers' actual behavior could be further explored in future studies.

#### **5. Conclusions**

This study explored factors that influenced consumers' perceptions and purchase willingness of non-thermally processed F&V products, in six European countries: Denmark, Italy, Serbia, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Lack of basic knowledge and trust among consumers was identified as the major potential impediment to their acceptance of non-thermally processed F&V products. Consumers have difficulties in assessing relevant benefits and risks, which engenders concerns and impedes the establishment of social trust. These findings suggest that an increase in public interest in novel NTP and non-thermally processed F&V products may be a long-term process. Consumer-oriented communication and education are necessary to enhance social awareness and trust. Information that incorporates benefits for the consumers could affect consumers' purchase willingness positively, especially when the information is concise and from trusted sources and the benefits are directly related to product quality and safety. Furthermore, consumers had a higher willingness in consuming F&V processed by more environmentally-friendly technologies which could save energy and provide benefits in terms of F&V waste reduction.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, X.S., P.P. and D.G.; methodology, X.S. and D.G.; formal analysis, X.S.; investigation, X.S., P.P., M.D.N., E.V.G. and D.G.; data curation, X.S.; writing—original draft preparation, X.S.; writing—review and editing, R.D.M. and D.G.; visualization, X.S.; supervision, D.G.; project administration, D.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This study is part of the SHEALTHY project (www.shealthy.eu), which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No 817936.

**Acknowledgments:** We are sincerely thankful to the study participants in all countries, as well as to colleagues within the SHEALTHY project who have provided feedbacks and/or helped with the outreach and dissemination activities connected to this research.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Sustainable Paper-Based Packaging: A Consumer's Perspective**

**Omobolanle O. Oloyede and Stella Lignou \***

Sensory Science Centre, Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Harry Nursten Building, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6DZ, UK; bola.oloyede@reading.ac.uk **\*** Correspondence: s.lignou@reading.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-(0)118-378-8717

**Abstract:** Over the last two decades, there has been growing interest from all stakeholders (government, manufacturers, and consumers) to make packaging more sustainable. Paper is considered one of the most environmentally friendly materials available. A qualitative study investigating consumers' expectations and opinions of sustainable paper-based packaging materials was conducted where 60 participants took part in focus group sessions organized in two stages. In the first stage, participants expressed their opinions about currently available packages in the market and their expectations about a sustainable packaging material. In the second stage of the study, they evaluated five paper-based prototype packages for two product categories (biscuits and meat). Too much plastic and over-packaging were the key issues raised for current packages. Price and quality were the main driving forces for consumers' purchase intent. While participants were impressed by the sustainable nature of the prototypes, the design did not necessarily meet their expectations, and they were not willing to pay more for a sustainable package. The key message that emerged from the discussions was the "3Rs"—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle"—which should be the main points to consider when designing a sustainable packaging.

**Keywords:** paper-based packaging; consumers; focus groups; sustainability; environmentally friendly

#### **1. Introduction**

The role of packaging in the safe delivery and transportation of products across the food chain cannot be overemphasized. To prevent food waste and loss, a good food package should ensure that food quality and safety is maintained from transportation through to storage of the product [1]. However, a major disadvantage of packaging is that it adds to the world's environmental footprint because it is always discarded immediately after the product is used [2]. The main types of materials used for food packaging include paper (including cardboard), wood, glass, metal, and various types of plastics.

Over the last two decades, there has been growing interests from governments, manufacturers, and consumers to make packaging more sustainable. Recent research in packaging focused on sustainability and how to make packaging materials more eco-friendly [3,4]. Technically, sustainable packaging has been defined as a packaging with a relatively low environmental impact based on life-cycle assessments (LCA) [5]. However to the average consumer, a sustainable package can be considered "a packaging design that evokes explicitly or implicitly the eco-friendliness of the packaging" [6].

Paper as a packaging material is experiencing a revival, as consumers perceive it as a high-value and environmentally friendly material [7–9]. Paper has the advantage of being bio-based, biodegradable, and recyclable. Studies from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Germany) showed a significantly lower impact of paperbased packaging on the environment compared to many other materials. Globally, paperbased packaging has the potential to tackle marine debris and lead to a lower impact of packaging in the environment. This is especially necessary as the amount of packaging used is steadily increasing due to small portion packaging, urbanization, and a growing worldwide population.

**Citation:** Oloyede, O.O.; Lignou, S. Sustainable Paper-Based Packaging: A Consumer's Perspective. *Foods* **2021**, *10*, 1035. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/foods10051035

Academic Editor: Antti Knaapila

Received: 31 March 2021 Accepted: 7 May 2021 Published: 10 May 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

In food packaging, there are various opportunities for more paper and a reduced polymer content; however, the technology has to be adapted to the production process, and the material composition has to fit to the product requirements. The possibilities of paper packaging are progressing, and solutions for barrier properties and formability are being addressed.

While life-cycle assessments (LCAs) show the sustainability value of packaging, it is important to understand consumer opinion and perception of these packages if marketing is to be successful. This is because consumer opinions and beliefs of a package which influence choice and purchase are not determined by LCA results [7,10]. The success of environmentally friendly packages is largely dependent on consumers as they are the ones who determine whether or not to buy the packages [11]. To increase consumer acceptability and purchase of sustainable packages, a detailed understanding of their opinions and perceptions of environmentally friendly packaging is needed [2].

A recent review by Ketelsen et al. [11] found only 21 out of 46 studies reviewed were focused on consumer responses to environmentally friendly packaging, showing that this area of research is not very well explored and demonstrating the need for more research in this area.

While some studies previously focused on the effect on perceived product quality of sustainable packaging [12,13], others focused on the influence of the design and labelling elements on consumer perceptions on environmentally friendly packaging [6,13]. Ertz et al. [13], in their study investigating the influence of environmental information on the reaction of 321 Canadian consumers, found that consumer perception of product quality was enhanced when environmental claims and labelling cues were well defined on the product packaging. However, when an environmental label was not accompanied by detailed self-declared environmental claims, the perception of product quality was not significantly enhanced.

Consumer awareness of the environmental impact of food packaging has been studied [9,14,15]. Participants who took part in focus group discussions and a survey in Italy considering labelling information on packaging stated that there was currently no information about environmentally friendly characteristics on packages and showed a high interest in having information about the sustainable characteristics of the packaging [15]. In their study on consumer responses to packaging design, Steenis et al. [9] reported that having sustainability cues on packaging was a key factor in determining how packages differed as evaluated by university students in the Netherlands.

A study conducted by Scott and Vigar-Ellis [16] on consumer understanding, perceptions, and behaviors in relation to environmentally friendly packaging in South Africa found that consumers had limited knowledge of what environmentally friendly packaging is, how to differentiate it from other packaging, as well as what benefits different packaging had. South African consumers stated that labels, images, and logos were the most important features used in helping them identify the environmentally friendly packaging. The packaging material and its color were other features used to judge packaging sustainability.

Consumer preference and willingness to buy or purchase products with environmentally friendly packaging was previously relatively well studied with conflicting results [17–22]. In a study conducted by Rokka and Uusitalo [17], where they compared green packaging with several product attributes and how these attributes affect consumer environmental choice, they found that one-third of the consumers participating in the study agreed that one of the most important criteria in their choice was the environmentally labelled packaging. Jerzyk [22] explored the attributes of sustainable packaging that have a positive impact on consumer behaviour and how purchasing intentions can be influenced when the packaging is sustainable among Polish and French students. They reported that sustainable packaging is not the most important factor when buying a product and that students are not willing to lose any of the functional and quality characteristics of the products because of the sustainable nature of the packaging. Concern for the environment and beliefs was shown to have an impact on purchase intent of eco-friendly packaging. Previous studies showed that consumers that are generally concerned about the environment are more likely to buy sustainable packaging [23–26].

In most cases, studies focused on environmentally friendly packaging in general rather than on specific packaging solutions [6,7,16,22,26–28]. Very few studies, however, focused on specific packaging for specific products such as paper packaging for cereal bars [13], glass packaging for foods [21] and for milk [29], and various packaging materials for tomato soup products [9]. This shows that existing knowledge on consumer responses to specific sustainable packaging solutions is limited. Thus, Ketelsen et al. [11] recommended that future research should focus on specific packaging solutions rather than environmentally friendly packaging in general to provide a deeper understanding of consumer opinions and acceptability of specific solutions. Focus groups, surveys, and interviews are some of the methodologies that were previously used to explore consumer insights in research. Focus groups which are generally used at the earlier stages of consumer research were used by several authors as they have the main advantage of allowing freedom of expression and open discussions from participants [30–32]. In light of this, the objectives of this study were to: (i) understand consumer perception of currently available food packaging; (ii) design sustainable paper-based packages for biscuit and meat products based on consumer opinions and expectations of sustainable paper-based packaging over a series of participatory focus group sessions; (iii) understand consumer opinions of the paper-based packages developed as well as evaluate and assess the characteristics and suitability of the packages. The rest of paper is divided into the following sections: research methodology and data analysis, findings of the study, and discussion of practical implications along with limitations of this research.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

The design process of the paper-based packages was intended to be in collaboration with consumers over a series of qualitative participatory focus group workshops. To achieve this, the study was divided into two stages, with Stage 1 aimed at understanding consumer expectations from sustainable paper-based packages in general and Stage 2 involved evaluation of the prototype packages designed based on findings and information obtained from Stage 1.

#### *2.1. Procedure*

Focus groups took place in a discussion room where participants were comfortably seated around a table so that they could see each other to allow for good interactions and discussions. Following best practices for conducting focus groups [30], each focus group session was made up of 6–8 participants, equally distributed in terms of age with two-thirds of the group being female due to the higher ratio of females:males that took part in the study. At the beginning of each session, the moderator gave an overview and stated the purpose of the study and what the role of the moderator would be. Participants were encouraged to share their opinions and were assured that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions being discussed. A pre-approved semi-structured focus group guide was used to direct the conversation. The focus group sessions lasted for approximately 2 h and were facilitated by two researchers: one moderating the session and the other taking notes. All sessions were audio- and video-recorded and transcribed verbatim for further analysis.

#### 2.1.1. Stage 1

Nine focus groups were conducted with a total of 60 participants. To get participants acquainted and comfortable with each other, foster interactions, and get them thinking about the topic to be discussed, participants were asked to introduce themselves and mention what they normally recycle. The discussions began by asking the group about their opinions of current food packaging materials available on the market. This was followed by questions around expectations and possible downsides of sustainable packaging materials.

Participants were then asked to discuss considerations when buying a product. Two currently available packages (one biscuit and one meat package: Figure 1) were presented to the participants. They were asked to open, manipulate, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the packages. Next, participants were presented with samples of the proposed sustainable paper-based packaging material (Figure 2) and asked to give their opinions on the characteristics of the materials. Finally, participants were asked for their willingness to buy or pay more for sustainable packaging.

**Figure 2.** Examples of new paper-based packaging materials discussed in Stage 1.

#### 2.1.2. Stage 2

A total of 56 participants from the first stage returned for the second stage of the study with a total of eight focus group sessions conducted. In this stage, participants were required to evaluate the paper-based packages partially designed based on their suggestions from Stage 1. The new paper-based prototype packages were presented one at a time to participants who were asked to discuss their opinions about them in terms of the design, material, etc. Participants were then asked to discuss if the packages met their expectations of a sustainable packaging material and the benefits and negatives compared to the current packages on the market. Next, they were asked to assess the ease of separation of the packaging film/barrier from the sustainable parts of the packaging. Finally, they were asked about their purchase intent of the products and how the percentage of sustainable material present in the package will influence their purchasing decision. In total, five new paper-based prototypes were developed and discussed during the session: two for the biscuits and three for the meat products (Table 1). In a life cycle assessment (LCA) performed on the paper-based trays with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) coating, the results showed that the paperboard tray has the smallest climate change impact compared to plastic crystalline polyethylene terephthalate (CPET) trays and recycled plastic recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) trays. For the meat packages, a life cycle analysis screening was performed and showed that if the new-paper based packaging is recycled, while the expanded polystyrene (EPS) (M0) tray is not, the paper-based tray has the lower environmental impact (considering the paper tray is recycled ten times).


#### **Table 1.** Biscuit and meat packages discussed in Stage 2.

#### *2.2. Participants*

Participants for the study were recruited from across Berkshire, UK. Recruitment emails were sent using the University of Reading general circulation list, and the volunteer databases of the Sensory Science Centre and Nutrition Unit of the Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading, UK. Advertisement posters were placed on various social media platforms, local shops around Reading, UK, and on notice boards within the University of Reading, UK. Interested participants were required to complete an eligibility screener. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be: above 18 years old; not allergic or intolerant to wheat, gluten, and/or dairy; interested in food packaging; available to take part in both stages of the study. The study was conducted between April and November 2019 and approved by the School of Chemistry, Food, and Pharmacy Research Ethics committee, University of Reading, UK (study number: 11/19). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the focus group sessions.

Demographic characteristics of the participants who took part in the study are presented in Table 2. A total of 60 participants took part in the study in Stage 1 with 56 returning for Stage 2. The majority of the participants were female (66.7% in Stage 1 and 71.4% in Stage 2) with the mean ages of 47 and 47.6 in Stages 1 and 2, respectively. The median age of participants was 49 in both stages with an age range of 19–71 years old. More than 60% of the participants were White British and less than 4% of Black/Caribbean/Mixed ethnicity. Almost all participants (95%) who took part in the study considered themselves environmentally conscious.


**Table 2.** Demographic characteristics of focus group participants.

#### *2.3. Data Analysis*

The transcribed data and notes taken during the sessions were analyzed using content analysis. The procedure followed was similar to that used by [31]. Two researchers extracted recurring themes from the transcripts of all focus groups individually, with the summary of key findings obtained by comparing the results of each researcher. For a result to be included, it had to have been mentioned in at least four out of nine (Stage 1) or eight (Stage 2) of the sessions [31,33].

#### **3. Results**

The results of the focus group discussions are presented by summarizing common themes that emerged from the focus group sessions, although the participants discussed each package individually. Some comments from the discussions are included to show how participants reflected on some of the themes.

#### *3.1. Stage 1*

3.1.1. Opinions on Available Packages Currently in the Market

The main themes highlighted by the participants in all sessions were the amount and type of packaging used to package foods. Participants stated that there was too much packaging and over-packaging of foods, most of which is unnecessary, with one participant saying, "you don't have to have individual wrappings for everything" and another, "why have a wrapping around a coconut?". The second point mentioned was that there was too much plastic (especially single-use plastics) packaging and black trays used to package products: "why use plastic except [when] absolutely necessary?"; "the amount of plastic being used is shocking and too much". Some participants stated that the reason being given for too much packaging was to protect the food for consumers which is what consumers want because they are wary of contamination. Other participants argued that consumers are constantly being told that but were wondering if it is what consumers actually want or what supermarkets need: "are shops just trying to pawn the waste to consumers to increase profits?"; "the packaging is to help the shops, not the world or consumer". Confusion on how to handle packages with more education needed was another theme highlighted across the focus group sessions: "most consumers do not understand how recycling works; do packages need to be washed before disposing them in the recycling bin?"; "clearer directions from manufacturers on how to dispose packaging is necessary"; "more universal methods of disposing packages are necessary". Some participants felt that glass was more sustainable than plastic packaging, but others argued that the production process of glass actually makes it less sustainable which showed that consumers were confused about sustainability in terms of food packaging: "glass is not necessarily more sustainable because the cost of production of recycling glass is 80% more than using fresh products". Participants called for full transparency of the packaging process; "we don't have the full story"; "consumers need information on things like the carbon footprint of packaging materials".

Overall, participants agreed that a cultural change is needed; consumers need to be more flexible with their requests on how foods are packaged; manufacturers need to change consumer attitudes and perspectives; and governments need to introduce laws which will help reduce the amount of packaging being used and give consumers no choice but to adapt. The ban on free plastic bags introduced by the UK government some years ago was highlighted as an example of how the government can help change consumer attitudes, with participants stating that more people now take their reusable bags (bags for life) with them when going to shop which has led to a sharp decline in the number of plastic bags being used. In summary, participants agreed that the "3Rs"—Reduce, Reuse and Recycle—need to be the mantra to make food packages more sustainable and environmentally friendly.

#### 3.1.2. Considerations When Buying a Product

Price was the main driving force considered by participants when buying a product and was closely followed by the product quality, with comments such as: "the first thing I think of is whether I am getting value for money"; "for me if I am buying anything, the quality of the product is at the forefront and then I consider whether I can afford it". For most of the participants, how the product is packaged was the last thing considered during purchasing. Most people stated that they only considered that when they got home. When asked if they considered sustainability of the packaging material when making a purchase, very few consumers stated that it was on their list of considerations, with most saying that they only considered the packaging sustainability after the purchase and that it was not a driving force at the point of purchase. Other factors that influence purchase intent mentioned by participants included personal choice, habit, how much time they had to shop, and what or if alternatives were available: "if I had a choice, I will go for something in a glass instead of plastic because I feel glass is more sustainable, but sometimes you don't have a choice"; "I sometimes try to find products in more sustainable packaging, but

sometimes they are not available and because I need it urgently, I end up buying anything I see"; "it depends on how much time I have got; if I had enough time, I would look around for products packaged in a sustainable way but if I didn't, I would just shove things into my basket without thinking of how they are packaged". Others said, "it depends on the cost; if loose fruits were slightly more expensive than fruits packaged in a plastic bag but within my budget, I would buy the loose fruits, but if they were over my budget, I would buy the packaged fruit"; "when I go for my weekly shopping, I generally go for brands I am used to within my price range without considering the packaging". Overall, most of the participants agreed that price and convenience trump environmental friendliness when making a purchasing decision.

#### 3.1.3. Expectations from a Sustainable Packaging

When asked to discuss expectations from a sustainable package, the main themes mentioned by participants were functionality in terms of maintaining product quality (e.g., freshness) and shelf life: "it should do its work of keeping the product safe and maintaining its quality"; durability: "It should be strong, stress-resistant, and able to keep the product intact without splitting or breaking until I get to my destination"; aesthetic value: "the design should be very attractive and stand out from other less sustainable packages"; must be recyclable or biodegradable: "a sustainable package should be easy to recycle and would be better if it was 100% recyclable"; "there is no point in me buying an attractive package if it is not recyclable"; minimal amount of packaging should be used: "do not over package products; use just enough packaging required to maintain product quality and safety". A key point mentioned was that packages need to be clearly labeled for sustainability; "the sustainability message needs to be clear so consumers can easily see that the package is more sustainable that other packages". Other points mentioned were that packages should be resealable (though this is product-dependent) and reusable, and that they should meet the standard requirements for the product that the packaging is being used for (e.g., oxygen and moisture barriers) and transparent where possible: "if I am buying a fresh product like meat or vegetable, I would like to be able to see what I am buying so I am sure it hasn't gone bad". The key characteristics outlined for a sustainable package were functionality, clear information, aesthetic value, and product shelf life. In summary, consumers expect a sustainable package to do everything a standard package would do and not be harmful to the environment (environmentally friendly) at the same time. Participants, however, agreed that this was a lot to ask, and there were some limitations in the ability of some sustainable packaging such as paper to keep foods fresh for a long period.

#### 3.1.4. Opinions on Currently Available Biscuit and Meat Packages Discussed in the Study

Participants were presented with a biscuit and a meat package currently available on the market (Figure 1) and asked to express their opinions of the packages. Results from the discussions were grouped into themes and presented based on those themes rather than on individual packages. Key themes that emerged were packaging material, design, size, functionality, and labelling. Participant responses were both positive and negative.

In terms of packaging material, participants commented on the flimsy nature of the outer wrapper of the biscuit package and the fact that it was made from foil-like material which was considered a negative with comments such as: "the wrapper rips up easily" and "oh you've got foil inside". The inner packaging of the biscuit, a black plastic tray, was considered in a negative light and was said to be pretty standard. Most participants disliked the feel of the polystyrene packaging of the meat including the single-use plastic lid; "this packaging is not recyclable". Both the biscuit and meat packages were considered harmful to the environment as they are not biodegradable, neither can they be reused or recycled. There were several suggestions on how the packages could made more environmentally friendly, with comments such as: "instead of the black plastic tray, the biscuits could be in a cardboard box"; "polystyrene! Can't it be cardboard?"; "why not use paper packaging and have a window on the lid so the product is visible to consumers?".

When it came to the design of the packages, participants had varying opinions on the biscuit package. While some loved the red color, found it attractive, and said it made it look expensive, others said the red color made it look cheap and unappealing and was designed to deceive the consumer; "design looks dull"; "red color of the package is designed to make us think it is a special product; if a different color was used, it won't be as appealing". Most participants loved the fact that the image of the product was on the packaging and that the product was not visible, stating that the images were a true reflection of the product inside. This was, however, disputed by others who felt the image was not a true reflection of the product. A small subset of participants loved the meat package and felt it gave the product a positive outlook, with comments such as: "gives the product a sense of freshness"; "looks like a packaging used in a Deli"; "looks like a product from a local butcher"; "love the transparent lid". Most participants, however, did not like the design of the meat package and found it unappealing and unattractive, with several comments such as: "looks very boring and dodgy"; "looks cheap and nasty"; "don't like the white color; white puts me off"; "I won't buy this if I had an option".

When discussing the size of the packages, participants found the size of the biscuit package generally acceptable when compared to the number of biscuits in the package and did not have much to say about it, with a few participants commenting that the packaging could be reduced a little if the biscuit was packed in a different way: "stacking the biscuits side by side like you have in some biscuits like digestive may reduce the amount of packaging used"; "instead of a separate outer foil and inner black tray, using a paper tray with a well-sealed top would have been better and reduced the amount of packaging". On the other hand, the meat was said to have been over-packed, with comments such as "too much packaging"; "there is too much empty space in the package"; and "the package is too big for the amount of product inside" mentioned by participants.

Another theme highlighted was "package function vs. products inside". Participants stated that the biscuit package was not very functional and did not perform the function of retaining the quality of the product: "the package is not protecting the biscuits; there are too many broken biscuits in my pack"; "package is too loose". Participants had little or nothing to say on the functionality of the meat package but had a lot to say about the labelling, with many comments related to the size and descriptions on the label: "label occupies too much space covering the product and making it not visible to the consumer"; "disposal information not visible enough"; "label should be more visible"; "different signs on the label is very confusing and unclear". Similar comments on the clarity of the label were made about the biscuit packaging. Participants found labelling instructions both very confusing and difficult to understand. Overall, participants preferred the biscuit package over the meat package mainly because they found the design of the biscuit package more appealing but felt both packages were not environmentally friendly and were "over-packed/overwrapped", and they felt that the volume of the meat package could be reduced by up to 40%.

#### 3.1.5. Opinions on Proposed Paper-Based Packaging Materials

The key themes that came out of the conversations around opinions on the proposed paper-based packages (Figure 2) were appearance, material characteristics and feel, functionality, ethical qualities, and emotional draw. The appearance of the packaging material was generally described as "looks natural", "biodegradable" and "recyclable" which are all positive comments and characteristics expected from a sustainable packaging material. Other characteristics mentioned included: "shiny outer coating", "looks flimsy and cheap", "doesn't look sturdy enough for transporting?", "looks boring and unappealing". Some participants worried that on the surface, the materials did not look strong enough to withstand stress: "is it strong? If you got a leak would it break?".

On touching and manipulating the material, participants described the packages as "stretchy and flexible", "a lot stronger than it looks", "strong paper: not very easy to tear" and "leak proof". Functionality was discussed in terms of the protection and preservation

that the material will offer to the product packaged in it. The materials were described as "durable", "will retain its shape with moisture", "can be used to package both the biscuit and the meat as well as many other food products", and "the shiny barrier or coating will cope with greasy products".

Ethical issues mentioned were centered around the sustainability value of the products. Though participants generally agreed that the packages had environmentally friendly characteristics and commented that the packages "could be marketed as eco-friendly versions of similar products", there were concerns around it being a single-use package with comments such as: "it is not reusable" and "it's a one-off use package". There were discussions around the amount of the packaging that would be recycled, with most consumers happy to separate the non-recyclable barrier from recyclable materials and satisfied if more than 50% of the package was recyclable, while others stated that "it gets confusing if not completely recyclable". In addition, participants were worried that though the package was recyclable, it can still end up in the landfill if it is contaminated by the product inside, and they wondered at what point it gets past the stage of recycling due to contamination. Another concern about the packages was what the cost of production was, compared to current packages, as that could affect the sustainability characteristic of the package in the long run, especially as it is not reusable. The final theme discussed was around the emotional response the packages drew from consumers, with most having a positive emotional pull: "makes me feel better that part if not all of the package is recyclable". This may have a positive impact on consumer attitudes towards sustainability.

Finally, given that most sustainable packages generally cost more than their nonsustainable counterparts, consumers were asked if they would be willing to pay more for the packages made from the sustainable paper-based material presented. While consumers welcomed the idea of replacing the current packages with the new packages, most of them were unwilling to pay more for the product saying that they expected the companies to bear the cost and could not understand why they should be charged more for doing what is right and helping the environment: "doesn't make sense that we have to pay to be green—so consumers shouldn't have to pay more for it"; "the increased price needs to be justified"; "companies should take it as their social responsibility". Very few participants across the focus groups were happy to pay a maximum of 10% more for the sustainable packages but suggested that "companies must 'sell' it to the consumer—give incentives" and governments should make legislations forcing companies to use more sustainable packages and could introduce taxes/fines if other non-sustainable materials are used. Participants would like to see more government initiatives and incentives to reduce the use of less sustainable packaging materials: "make plastics less lucrative".

In conclusion, consumers felt that everyone (government, manufacturers, and consumers) had a part to play if the change to sustainable packaging is to be successful.

#### *3.2. Stage 2*

Following evaluation of the paper-based package prototypes (Table 1) and comparing them to the old existing packages, the following themes emerged: appearance, material characteristics, design and size, functionality, target population/market, and price/purchase intent.

#### 3.2.1. Packaging Material Characteristics

Appearance, strength, and feel were the main packaging material characteristics discussed. In terms of appearance, the B2 prototype package was described as more appealing and preferred than the B1 package with comments such as "quite attractive catches the eye" and "looks classy, like a quality product". On the other hand, statements such as "looks cheap and unappealing" were used to describe package B1. Comparing the current biscuit package (B0) to the prototypes, participants found B0 more attractive than both B1 and B2. When discussing the appearance of the meat packages, prototypes M2 and M3 were more preferred than M1, with M1 described as looking "very amateurish", "cheap

and unattractive" and "shocking!" while M2 and M3 were described as "looking very basic in a good way". Similar to the biscuit packages, participants preferred the appearance of the existing meat package (M0) with comments such as "it looks neater than the others". One of the positive comments for the prototype meat packages, however, was that they looked more natural and environmentally friendly than M0.

Discussions around the strength of the packages revealed that participants found the B2 package to be "more sturdy" than B1, which was described as "very flimsy". B2 was considered to be "more rigid and stronger" than B0. The tray strength of meat prototype package M3 was said to be the "most rigid" of all the three prototype packages with M1 and M2 described as "very flimsy" and "less sturdy" than M3, respectively. The lid strength of the three prototypes were also discussed, with participants mentioning that the lids of M1 and M3 were "stronger" and "won't tear easily" when compared to the M3 lid, which they felt "may be easy to tear compared to the other ones". "Looks easily breakable" and "not as strong as the paper packages" were some of the ways the M0 package was described by participants.

The final characteristic mentioned was the feel of the packages. In general, participants loved the cardboard feel of all biscuit and meat paper-based prototypes. However, the "bumpy" feel of package B2 was preferred to the smooth feel of B1 with participants stating that the "bumpy" feel of B2 gave it a "better grip" and made it easier to hold than B1. One participant described the feel of B1 as "feels cheap—don't like it". Statements used to describe the meat paper-based packages included: "feels natural", "has a homemade feel, like something from the butchers".

#### 3.2.2. Design and Size

All the biscuit and meat prototype packages were considered too big for the amount of the product they contained. While in the case of the biscuit packages, participants found the size of B0 great and just right for the amount of biscuits it contained, they said that the M0 package was too big for the portion of meat inside. Comments for the paper-based packages include "definitely a waste of space"; "why use so much packaging?"; "the fact that it is supposed to be a more sustainable package doesn't mean it should be this big; "what a waste!". On another note, participants felt that the shape of biscuit packages B1 and B2 needed to be modified, as the shape limited the number of biscuits that the packages could accommodate, referring to it as "not deep enough". Participants felt that the packages were too big, with comments such as: "packaging probably cost twice the price of the biscuits". On the other hand, while participants loved the shape of the M3 package and described M2 as "looks like a proper tray—with less packaging", participants found the shape of the M1 package to be "too big", "funny", and "not well-defined". The light weight of the paper-based prototypes was loved, with participants saying: "it is very light so will be easy to carry".

In terms of the design, the white and red color contrast of packages B1 and B2 was loved and preferred when compared to the "all red" color of B0. In addition, participants preferred the foldable pack design of B1 and B2 to the flat design of B0, though some participants found the double pack design very confusing and felt it would be better to separate the two packs. However, the "bumpy" design of B2 was favored to the smooth design of B1. When discussing the meat packages, participants found all three prototypes, M1, M2, and M3 too plain-looking. The lid of the meat packages was discussed, with participants disliking the non-transparent paper lid of M3 because it made it impossible to see the contents of the package. Suggestions mentioned included: "put a window for product visibility", but some participants disagreed, saying: "I need to see everything to know how the product inside looks like; a window doesn't work for me". Finally, participants were not impressed with the shiny barrier in the paper-based prototypes and found it off-putting, as they felt it made the packages less sustainable and more difficult to recycle with comments such as: "outer package says sustainable but inside says a different thing" and "can't tell if it is paper or plastic".

#### 3.2.3. Functionality

All paper-based prototype packages were said to be very difficult to open compared to B0 and M0. It was suggested that "a side flap and indicator for opening" be added, just as was present in M0 that needed to be included in the design to guide consumers on where to open the packages. However, for the biscuit packages, participants found B2 a bit easier to open than B1, which they attributed to the "bumpy" nature of the tray which made it firmer to hold. The difficulty in opening the packages was seen as a positive by the participants in some way, as they felt it meant the packages were tightly sealed, improving their preservation characteristics and making them more stress-resistant. B1 and B2 packages were said to offer more protection to the biscuits than B0 due to their rigidity and foldable design, with participants saying the B2 "bumpy" design offered more protection than the smooth B1. On the other hand, participants found it difficult to split both packages, with most splits resulting in broken biscuits and opened seals, which participants found unacceptable. It was suggested that single packs would be better than duo packs and be more functional overall. Participants were nervous about contamination in M1, M2, and M3 packages, with worries that the M2 lid was touching the product which could lead to contamination, unlike in the case of M1 and M3. There were concerns over the protection of the products inside the paper-based packages if they got wet due to rain or cold storage in the case of the meat packages, with comments such as: "what happens when it gets wet or soggy?".

Though worried about the sustainability aspect of the barrier in M1, M2, and M3 packages, participants found it very functional in keeping the product safe. Participants found separating the barrier of the paper-based packages from the paper material difficult to varying degrees. For the biscuit packages, B2 was easier to separate than B1 while for the meat packages, M2 was the most difficult to separate. However, participants made it clear that they were unwilling to be saddled with the responsibility of separating the barrier before disposing the package. Some of the reasons given include: "it is a hassle"; "trying to separate the barrier in the meat package can lead to contamination"; and "if I am eating the biscuit on the go, you cannot expect me to separate the barrier". Participants felt that the design and shape of the new prototypes were not very functional for the products, as they led to too much packaging with little content inside. They suggested that the shape of the biscuit packages should be changed to something such as a rectangle, which will reduce the amount of packaging used while increasing the number of biscuits inside. It was suggested that the black plastic tray design of B0 be retained, with the plastic replaced by a paper-based tray. A major functionality missing from the paper-based prototype packages according to participants was the inability to reseal the packages after opening, with many saying that the lid should be made resealable for storage purposes.

#### 3.2.4. Target Population/Market

Target population/market was one of the themes to emerge from the biscuit packaging discussions. While participants felt that the target market/population of the B0 package was very clear, they found the double pack of B1 and B2 to be very confusing, and the target market/population not clearly defined. It was obvious that B0 was targeted towards "family or party use", but B1 and B2 were described as having no clear target, with questions and statements such as: "is it an on-the-go product?"; "package and content is too much to be an on-the-go snack"; "is it designed for one time consumption?"; "is this aimed at younger people?"; "I cannot imagine it as a snack pack, looks more like a lunch box"; "doesn't stand out, no clear message or target". These questions and comments clearly show the confusion of the participants. In terms of where the B1 and B2 products could be sold, airports, cinemas, street corner shops, and canteens were the suggested possible places, though the location would be dependent on the target market.

#### 3.2.5. Price/Purchase Intent

Price/purchase intent was a key theme highlighted during the discussions. While the B0 package was considered better value for money, B1 and B2 were not, with many participants saying they would probably buy them once but would not buy them again. Participants said they were generally not tempted to buy the biscuits in the new paperbased packaging but recommended the duo pack be separated into two packs and sold as single packs to improve the purchasing value with comments such as: "better to separate the two packs, think you will sell more" expressed by several participants. The M2 package was considered good value for money, but M1 was thought to be unacceptable to be introduced into the market. Participants were more open to buying the M2 and M3 packages with preference for the M2 because of the transparent lid but unwilling to buy M1 package.

With regards to purchase intent, similar to Stage 1, participants were generally not willing to pay more to be sustainable, but some were happy to pay "5 to 10%" more for the new sustainable paper-based packages, mostly because of their dislike of the polystyrene in the M0 package and black plastic tray of the biscuit package.

#### **4. Discussion**

The aim of this study was to understand consumers' expectations and opinions of sustainable paper-based packaging materials and to evaluate and assess the characteristics and suitability of the developed paper-based prototype packages. The findings from this study contribute to existing knowledge on consumer opinions and reactions to sustainable packaging materials [2,6–9,12,15,30,31,34–36]. While past studies focus mainly on surveys, interviews, and general conversations around consumer opinions and attitudes to available sustainable packages, this study goes further by involving consumers in the design process of paper-based packages not currently available on the market, with consumers having the opportunity to interact physically with the packages, which is missing from some studies [2,7].

One of the main points highlighted for both the old and prototype biscuit and meat packages assessed in this study was the use of excessive packaging or over-packaging of the products which participants found off-putting. Previous studies carried out in several countries including the UK showed that consumers have a negative reaction to the over-packaging of foods [7,14,37–39]. Though the prototype packages in this study were made from sustainable paper-based materials, participants felt the oversized nature of the packages was a form of wastage and was considered bad for the environment, suggesting that the amount of packaging used should always be commensurate to the product they contain. A study investigating consumer perception of the environmental benefit of several ecological consumption patterns found that consumers believed avoiding unnecessary packaging had a strong positive impact on the environment [38]. In another study conducted by Lea and Worsley [40] examining Australians' food-related environmental beliefs, minimal use of packaging by food manufacturers was said to be the most important way to help save the environment. Hanssen et al. [39] investigated the environmental profile of ready-to-eat meals and found that over 50% of the participants thought that the manufacturers used too much packaging. On the contrary, in another study, when asked what made a package environmentally friendly, consumers did not consider the amount of packaging as an important factor [41]. The varying positions suggest differences in consumer perception and opinions of what environmentally friendly means. As manufacturers consider moving to more sustainable packaging options, size should be an important aspect to bear in mind, as consumers consider over-sized packaging a negative characteristic of a sustainable package.

Too much plastic packaging was mentioned as a major problem in today's food packaging, with participants discussing the negative impact of these plastics on the environment. On the other hand, participants found the paper-based prototypes as a more sustainable packaging solution to the plastic and polystyrene packages currently used for the biscuit

and meat products assessed in the study. The result of this study corresponds with the findings of previous research where paper and plastic were ranked by consumers as the most and least environmentally friendly materials, respectively, when comparing plastic, paper, glass, and metal [7,9]. Consumers who took part in a study in Sweden highlighted the negative environmental impact of plastic packaging, with paper reported to be more environmentally friendly [8].

Consumers are, however, still unclear as to what the most sustainable packaging is, with their judgements being mostly subjective and based on their personal perception rather than the sustainability characteristics of the product. Discussions around sustainability in the current study showed that while some participants considered paper-based packaging to be the most sustainable packaging, others felt glass was more sustainable in the ease of recycling. This was, however, disputed by other participants who stated that the cost of recycling glass made it less sustainable and environmentally friendly than assumed. These conversations reflect the limited knowledge that consumers have on what a sustainable product is and the confusion they face when determining what a sustainable product is. Participants agreed that consumers need to be better informed and educated on the production process of packaging to help them make informed decisions. van Dam [10] and Allegra et al. [42] reported that consumers rated paper-based packaging as the most environmentally friendly material. A survey of Swedish consumers revealed that consumers based their judgement of the environmental impact of food packaging on their perception but were also aware of the flaws in their judgement [7]. These results show that there is a need for better guidance to ensure that the noble intentions of consumers to be sustainable are not unknowingly thwarted by their decisions. In general, participants defined a sustainable product based on 3Rs—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle—which are important processes within the Circular Economy [3]. In previous studies conducted in USA, UK, Germany and China [41], Denmark [43], and Sweden [7], consumers defined a package as environmentally friendly if it was recyclable and reusable, and used the minimal amount of packaging material.

Poor communication of disposal labels was another theme to come out of the focus group discussions. Participants stated that they found disposal information and communications on packages difficult to understand, which meant they ended up not disposing the packages in the right manner in some cases, and most people found this very frustrating. Results from the study highlight the challenges that consumers face as a result of poor disposal information by the manufacturers, which may lead to the benefits of the packages being lost on consumers. A study conducted by [44] on the consumer "attitude-behavioral" intention gap in relation to sustainability found that the positive environmental impact of packages is generally poorly communicated to consumers, impacting their ability to make informed decisions. The authors further underscored the importance of communication in increasing consumer awareness and knowledge of environmental aspects of a product and their influence on the consumer purchase decision. The consumer "attitude-behavioral" intention gap was further reinforced by [11] who acknowledged that consumers' sustainable intentions to act in a sustainable way, while honorable, do not normally translate to their actual behavior. Fernqvist et al. [8] stated that poor communication of the added benefit of a product may influence consumer expectations and future purchase intent negatively.

Similar to previous studies [15,28,30,34,44], price and product quality were found to be the main driving force of consumer purchase intent. In the current study, participants stated that packaging was not on their list of considerations when purchasing a product despite 95% of them saying they considered themselves environmentally conscious individuals and would like to see more sustainable packages on the market. Participants said that they are creatures of habit and would normally stick to familiar brands and only think of the package after purchase or when they got to their destination. Participants further stated that convenience and price trump everything else. More than 80% of consumers cited the environmental status of a food packaging as one of the main factors that influences their selection of a food product but the extent to which this factor influences their decision is

unclear. According to Bech-Larsen [34], while consumers are concerned about the effects of packaging on the environment, that concern seldom influences their purchasing decision because there are more important factors considered; consumers are not good at distinguishing between packaging; and their purchasing process is habitualized. Several studies showed that sustainability comes secondary to other factors such as price, convenience, product quality, and shelf life, and thus is not a major driver of purchase [41,45].

Participants expect sustainable packages to have all the functionality of a package and be sustainable. Developing a package from a sustainable material such as paper, particularly for sensitive foods, might prove to be a challenging undertaking for the food industry, as it may be difficult to achieve a sustainable package that provides the required functionalities while maintaining the quality characteristics of the product inside. Participants were not wowed by the design and functionality of the paper-based packages studied. The main functions of a packaging identified by Lindh [46] were protection, communication, and facilitation of handling (which includes easy-to-open status, re-sealability, size, functional weight, shape, easy-to-grip status, etc.), and participants in this study felt the paper-based packaging did not meet most of these criteria. While they found the biscuit prototype packages innovative and different, the packaging did not perform the basic function of protecting the biscuits, with several broken pieces found inside the packages. In general, they felt the design of the packages were not eye-catching or attractive enough and stated that environmentally friendly packaging needs to stand out from other packaging on the shelf if it is to attract consumers. For the meat packages, the ability to see and judge the quality of the product inside was of particular importance to participants who preferred the M2 over the M3 package because even though they had exactly the same design, unlike M3, the M2 package had a transparent lid. Participants, however, stated that the requirement of a transparent lid is mainly applicable for fresh products (e.g., meat, fish, etc.) and does not apply to dry foods such as biscuits. A growing trend in the food industry is a shift away from just showing product images on the package to using transparent packaging materials, which allow consumers to see exactly what they are buying [47]. Previous studies showed that transparent packaging increases expected freshness, expected quality, and purchase intent in various food categories [48,49]. This suggests that transparent packaging has an effect on consumer behavior [47]. Participants also found the color of the meat packaging too plain and dull and were not tempted to buy these products. In addition to text and pictures, color has been shown to affect consumers' preference for environmentally friendly products [8]. Magnier and Schoormans [2] in their study investigating consumer reactions to sustainable packaging across two countries and products found that attractiveness and visual appearance were important factors to consider when designing environmentally friendly packaging, as this was strongly correlated with increased preference and purchase intent.

Though previous studies [7,27,41] showed that environmentally conscious consumers are often willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products, most participants in this study, though they considered themselves environmentally conscious, were unwilling to pay more for the sustainable paper-based packaging. A few people were, however, willing to pay 10–15 pence more for the sustainable paper-based packaging but stated that the packaging did not currently meet their expectations in terms of design and functionality and would have to do so if they were to pay more.

The findings of our study corresponds with the study of Ertz et al. [13], where consumers were unwilling to pay more for more sustainable packaging, and Barber [13,50], where only 28% of consumers were willing to pay more for environmentally friendly "green" wine packaging. Krystallis and Chryssohoidis [51] found that consumers are unwilling to pay more for packaging that they do not believe meets their standards. While most studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, the amount they are willing to pay varies between studies and is difficult to measure because of the difference in packaging products studied and how the cost is presented.

This study is not without its limitations. Firstly, not all of the information obtained during Stage 1 was considered in the development of the paper-based prototypes as a result of the technology used and the geometries that could be realized with the paperbased material. The prototypes developed did not have any labelling information, so this aspect was not considered in Stage 2 of the study. On another note, more than 65% of the participants that took part in the study were female which may have biased the results of the study. Previous studies showed that females have a more positive attitude towards the environment and care more about sustainable food packaging than males [23,28].

#### **5. Conclusions**

This study provides further understanding of consumer responses and opinions to sustainable paper-based packaging. While the results of this study highlight key consumer opinions of a sustainable paper-based package within the UK population, we recognize that findings may differ with a larger sample size or different demographic within the UK or in other parts of the world due to cultural and regional differences regarding sustainability perception of consumers. Focus groups have been reported as a good way to gain insights into consumer opinions regarding issues which can then be analyzed using a more quantitative methodology in the future [8]. The result of this study shows that participants who took part in the study are (i) aware of the environmental impacts of food packages; (ii) concerned about the negative impact of the unsustainable packages on the environment, and (iii) desire a change in the type and amount of materials used in food packaging. This study further confirms that price and quality remain key driving forces for consumers' purchase intent. Participants did not like the paper-based packages evaluated in this study but found the biscuit design interesting and innovative. Overall, the paper-based packages did not meet participants' expectations, but they all agreed that the design was headed in the right direction. To validate the results of this study, a quantitative study with 130 participants was conducted with results corresponding with this study [49]. In summary, the key message that emerged from the discussions was the "3Rs"—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle —which should be the main points to consider when designing a sustainable packaging. In addition, a cultural change is needed across all stakeholders (government, manufacturers, and consumers) if success is to be achieved.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, O.O.O. and S.L.; methodology, O.O.O. and S.L.; software, O.O.O. and S.L.; validation, O.O.O. and S.L.; formal analysis, O.O.O. and S.L.; investigation, O.O.O. and S.L.; resources, O.O.O. and S.L.; data curation, O.O.O.; writing—original draft preparation, O.O.O.; writing—review and editing, O.O.O. and S.L.; visualization, O.O.O. and S.L.; supervision, S.L.; project administration, S.L.; funding acquisition, S.L. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the European Institute of Innovation & Technology—EIT Food, grant number 19136: "InPaper: Innovative paper-based packaging technology and pack styles for food production".

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the School of Chemistry, Food, and Pharmacy Ethics Committee of University of Reading (study number: 11/19 and date of approval: 25 April 2019).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank all our industrial partners for their invaluable insights during the project and in particular Matthias Klauser and Johannes Rauschnabel from Syntegon Technology GmbH (formerly Bosch Packaging Technology) for working on the development of packages B1, B2, M2, and M3; Alexander Lenske and Marek Hauptmann from IVV-Fraunhofer for the development of M1 package; Veerle Carlier from the Colruyt Group and Efrat Ben Hamo from the Strauss Group for supplying M0 and B0 products, respectively. We would also like to thank Xirui Zhou and Erin Wallace for their help during the focus group sessions, James Hall for providing audio-visual support, and the volunteers who took part in the study.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **References**


*Review*
