**3. Methods and Materials**

Four months (from November 2018 to February 2019) of data was gathered by means of nationwide data collection from UK supermarket Fairtrade consumers. Participants were screened to capture respondents that were responsible for the majority of food purchases for their household and that had purchased sustainable food within the previous three months. We used an online consumer survey circulated through the SurveyMonkey platform. This technique enabled us to gather a large response set while providing the convenience of time flexibility in the participation process to the target audience. Networking and connections played a pivotal role in the attainment of loyalty card data from the UK supermarkets. The use of networking and connection is a handy and credible approach in social science research [49,50]. This technique also enabled us the filtering and identification of specific participants primarily responsible for most of their household shopping and particular items consumed by those individuals. Furthermore, the cluster sampling strategy was also incorporated to ensure the aim of a large-scale survey to delimit the regional specification and enhance the geographical spread of the sample. The regional delimiting technique is also a credible and valid approach previously used in social science studies [51,52]. Thus, the spread of this sample covered six regions in the UK (the East of England, Northern Scotland, Scottish Borders, Northern Ireland, Wales and the West of England, and Southern England).

The cluster sampling technique enabled us to attain fair representation [51] through regional quotas, therefore, 16% of each regional quota representation was attained. Interestingly, a total of 1601 usable questionnaires were returned and completed, indicating a 58% response rate (which is adequate and acceptable in drawing a fair conclusion). It also helps in the attainment of an appropriate sample size ratio [14,49]. Moreover, the selective extrapolation method used in this study is effective in avoiding non-response bias [53]. Frequently, in qualitative studies, the sample size is not about numeric quantification because it is to understand the hidden embedded themes in-depth [49]. The focus is more on the useful truth rather than the factual truth [54,55].

The survey questions were partly adapted from a study by Sidali et al. [15] but it was conducted in English. We asked for the views of survey participants on which food industry stakeholders ought to be directly responsible for ensuring or deciding that sustainable food

alternatives be made available on the consumer market. The survey featured an open-ended question to enable researchers to undertake a thematic analysis of whether governments have the approval of shoppers to reduce food choices by requesting food producers and retailers to selectively offer sustainable healthy food products. A dichotomous question was asked to elicit consumers' readiness to back a government proposal for choice editing in favor of sustainable foods and to allow them to give the rationale behind their respective positions. Subsequently, the survey enquired of respondents an estimate: "By discounting price, how much of your shopper freedom in terms of food selection options are you ready to surrender to enable your favourite supermarkets to supply sustainable healthy foods?" Data of 1601 respondents were used in the analysis. The study employed qualitative analysis of free-text comments in a UK nationwide survey on sustainable healthy food consumption using inductive thematic analysis. The responses were saved in an Excel spreadsheet. We used Bar Diagrams to visually represent the agreement and disagreement of the consumers. This was followed by Pro Word Cloud to visually present the main themes drawn from the agreed and disagreed consumers. food alternatives be made available on the consumer market. The survey featured an open-ended question to enable researchers to undertake thematic analysis whether governments have the approval of shoppers to reduce food choice through requesting food producers and retailers to selectively offer sustainable healthy food products. A dichotomous question was asked to elicit consumers' readiness to back a government proposal for choice editing in favor of sustainable foods and to allow them to give the rationale behind their respective positions. Subsequently, the survey enquired of respondents an estimate: "By discounting price, how much of your shopper freedom in terms of food selection options are you ready to surrender to enable your favorite supermarkets to supply sustainable healthy foods?" Data of 1601 respondents were used in the analysis. The study employed qualitative analysis of free-text comments in a UK nationwide survey on sustainable healthy food consumption using inductive thematic analysis. The responses were saved in an Excel spreadsheet. We used Bar Diagrams to visually represent the agreement and disagreement of the consumers. This was followed by Pro Word Cloud to visually present the main themes drawn from the agreed and disagreed consumers.

Frequently, in qualitative studies, the sample size is not about numeric quantification because it is to understand the hidden embedded themes in-depth [49]. The focus is more

The survey questions were partly adapted from a study by Sidali et al. [15] but it was conducted in English. We asked for the views of survey participants on which food industry stakeholders ought to be directly responsible for ensuring or deciding that sustainable

*Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

on the useful truth rather than factual truth [54,55].

### **4. Qualitative Analysis and Discussion 4. Qualitative Analysis and Discussion**

Following the section above that highlights our data choice and methods, here we critically discuss the qualitative findings. The results are examined and discussed using the extant literature as the basis to confirm or contradict existing scholarship. We established from the results that there is a split opinion among consumers, as categorized into two: (a) in favor, and (b) against the idea that the government be allowed to reduce consumer food choice (See Figure 1). Following the section above that highlights our data choice and methods, here we critically discuss the qualitative findings. The results are examined and discussed using the extant literature as the basis to confirm or contradict existing scholarship. We established from the results that there is a split opinion among consumers, as categorized into two: (a) in favor, and (b) against the idea that government be allowed to reduce consumer food choice (See Figure 1).

**Figure 1.** UK Consumers' response to government be allowed to reduce consumer food choice by requesting producers and retailers*.*  **Figure 1.** UK Consumers' response to the government is allowed to reduce consumer food choices by requesting producers and retailers.

The qualitative analysis involved a thematic analysis on consumer opinions on whether the government should be given the right to edit consumer food selection options by encouraging food producers and retailers to offer to the market only sustainable healthy food products. Out of the sample of 1598 responses, 712 (44.6%) agreed that the The qualitative analysis involved a thematic analysis of consumer opinions on whether the government should be given the right to edit consumer food selection options by encouraging food producers and retailers to offer to the market only sustainable healthy food products. Out of the sample of 1598 responses, 712 (44.6%) agreed that the government should be given the right to edit consumer food selection options by encouraging food producers and retailers to offer to the market only sustainable healthy food, while a majority of 886 (55.4%) disagreed (See Figure 1).

Of the majority who disagreed or discouraged food choice reduction intervention, the main thematic responses were "Freedom of choice"; "Individual choice to decide and responsibility"; "Producers to be encouraged to develop sustainable products"; "Need for education"; "Consumers have power"; "Consumers should be made to fund health conditions they develop from unhealthy food."; "Government should fund the production of sustainable foods"; and "This will lead to less competition within the market" (See Figure 2). education"; "Consumers have power"; "Consumers should be made to fund health conditions they develop from unhealthy food."; "Government should fund production of sustainable foods"; and "This will lead to less competition within the market" (See Figure 2).

government should be given the right to edit consumer food selection options by encouraging food producers and retailers to offer to the market only sustainable healthy food,

Of the majority who disagreed or discouraged food choice reduction intervention, the main thematic responses were "Freedom of choice"; "Individual choice to decide and responsibility"; "Producers to be encouraged to develop sustainable products"; "Need for

*Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13

while a majority of 886 (55.4%) disagreed (See Figure 1).

**Figure 2.** Thematic response/reasoning given by the disagreed consumers. **Figure 2.** Thematic response/reasoning given by the disagreed consumers.

The in-depth exploration of the emerged themes revealed that opposing the idea of forced choices meant that consumers have no freedom to select their preferred choices. Thus, many disagreed by supporting that the freedom of choice is an important aspect. The exerted force is still a force without one's own willingness, even if it is meant to be healthy and sustainable. Another theme evident from the disagreed phenomenon was the final decision and responsibility component. This indicates that the final decision and responsibility of selecting the food from the shelves should be with the consumers. They should be deciding upon what is right or not for them. A third theme emerged about why the consumers should be forced to change their choice. The burden of sustainable behavior should not be solely on the consumer, instead the produced should be forced to produce sustainable items. If the non-sustainable items are on the shelves, consumers will buy them because they are inexpensive. Thus, the producers should be held responsible to develop and produce sustainable items. The burden of sustainable consumption should The in-depth exploration of the emerged themes revealed that opposing the idea of forced choices meant that consumers have no freedom to select their preferred choices. Thus, many disagreed by supporting that freedom of choice is an important aspect. The exerted force is still a force without one's own willingness, even if it is meant to be healthy and sustainable. Another theme evident from the disagreed phenomenon was the final decision and responsibility component. This indicates that the final decision and responsibility of selecting the food from the shelves should be with the consumers. They should be deciding upon what is right or not for them. A third theme emerged about why consumers should be forced to change their choice. The burden of sustainable behavior should not be solely on the consumer, instead, the produced should be forced to produce sustainable items. If non-sustainable items are on the shelves, consumers will buy them because they are inexpensive. Thus, the producers should be held responsible to develop and produce sustainable items. The burden of sustainable consumption should not be on the consumers, but the burden of sustainable production should be on producers.

not be on the consumers, but the burden of sustainable production should be on producers. Another interesting argument emerged from those who oppose the idea is that government should start educating people before imposing ideas of consumption. People would switch to sustainable items when they have awareness about the benefits and needs of sustainable consumption. There was also a theme that consumers have the power and should always be empowered to make the decision about consumption. Such thoughts Another interesting argument that emerged from those who oppose the idea is that government should start educating people before imposing ideas of consumption. People would switch to sustainable items when they have awareness of the benefits and needs of sustainable consumption. There was also a theme that consumers have the power and should always be empowered to make the decision about consumption. Such thoughts emerged from the notion that money and purchasing power lies with the consumers so they should make the choice whether to consume any item or not.

emerged from the notion that money and purchasing power lies with the consumers so they should make the choice whether to consume any item or not. Another theme emerged that is more of a suggestion from those who disagreed with the imposed idea of sustainable consumption, which is that such consumers who do not want to reduce their non-sustainable consumption pattern should be asked to make health donations. This would at least balance out the sustainable act/behavior to a larger extent. On the other hand, the argument also emerged that if the government wants the consumers to adopt sustainable consumption behavior, then they should fund production of sustainable foods. Perhaps that will make it less expensive and easier for consumers to buy.

The last theme that emerged was that the forced choice upon the consumers will also mean that all the producers are producing sustainable items, which is again a threat to competition. Competition keeps businesses active and dynamic, while the possibility of competition shrinking is likely because of such decisions. It is good to have competition because it benefits the consumers and producers. Therefore sustainable consumption should not be forced to keep the competition alive. competition shrinking is likely because of such decisions. It is good to have competition because it benefits the consumers and producers. Therefore sustainable consumption should not be forced to keep the competition alive. The discussion based on the present qualitative findings in the light of the literature at hand shows that sustainable consumption is a consistent yet progressive challenge that

Another theme emerged that is more of a suggestion from those who disagreed with the imposed idea of sustainable consumption, which is that such consumers who do not want to reduce their non-sustainable consumption pattern should be asked to make health donations. This would at least balance out the sustainable act/behavior to a larger extent. On the other hand, the argument also emerged that if government wants the consumers to adapt sustainable consumption behavior, then they should fund production of sustainable foods. Perhaps that will make it less expensive and easier for consumers to buy.

The last theme that emerged was that the forced choice upon the consumers will also mean that all the producers are producing sustainable items, which is again a threat to competition. Competition keeps businesses active and dynamic, while the possibility of

*Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13

The discussion based on the present qualitative findings in the light of the literature at hand shows that sustainable consumption is a consistent yet progressive challenge that is evident in the sustainable food sector. Despite the governmental efforts and enhanced social awareness among the consumers through digital and other platforms about organic and sustainable consumption, there is still higher reluctance among the consumers toward sustainable food. Thus, our findings to a large extent aligned with previous studies [6,7,50,56]. The qualitative findings also revealed that there is an argument that there is very little variety of sustainable consumption items and accessibility in many retail outlets; supermarkets, for example, are substantially lower in organic and/or sustainable items, which further proves to be a hurdle in developing taste and preference for sustainable food consumption. Hence, the findings of the present study partially support the previous work of [1–4]. is evident in the sustainable food sector. Despite the governmental efforts and enhanced social awareness among the consumers through digital and other platforms about organic and sustainable consumption, there is still higher reluctance among the consumers towards sustainable food. Thus, our findings to a large extent aligned with previous studies [6,7,50,56]. The qualitative findings also revealed that there is an argument that there is very little variety of sustainable consumption items and accessibility in many retail outlets; supermarkets, for example, are substantially lower in organic and/or sustainable items, which further proves to be a hurdle in developing taste and preference for sustainable food consumption. Hence, the findings of the present study partially support the previous work of [1–4].

However, for those who agreed or encouraged food choice reduction intervention, the main thematic responses were "Food industry's notorious for selling unhealthy food"; "Need to keep the price of sustainable products down."; "Government should legislate."; "All food sold should be whole natural food."; "Retailers should produce more healthy food as obesity is a problem."; "Healthy food is good for us."; "Government's obligation."; and "GMO foods, foods are grown using artificial methods, harm the environment and humans." (See Figure 3). However, for those who agreed or encouraged food choice reduction intervention, the main thematic responses were "Food industry's notorious for selling unhealthy food"; "Need to keep the price of sustainable products down."; "Government should legislate."; "All food sold should be whole natural food."; "Retailers should produce more healthy food as obesity is a problem."; "Healthy food is good for us."; "Government's obligation."; and "GMO foods, foods grown using artificial methods, harms the environment and humans." (See Figure 3).

**Figure 3.** Thematic response/reasoning given by the agreed consumers.

On exploration of the reasons behind the agreement, it is evident that participants believe that the food industry has been notorious for selling unhealthy food. Thus, forcing the development of sustainable consumption patterns would also drive the food producers to give up on their unhealthy food production process and invest in sustainable practices. Interestingly, there emerged a theme about prices, which is more of a suggestion that sustainable product prices should be kept lower because organic products prices are higher which discourages the consumers from buying them. Thus, the government control of reducing non-sustainable choices in favor of sustainable items would also include a reduction in the prices of sustainable items. Another theme evident along similar lines is

that government should legislate and regulate the prices and patterns in the food industry. Such legislature of monitoring would enable the consumers to have healthy food choices while the producers would also develop healthy food processing and production practices. Interestingly, some of the participants stated that all unnatural foods should be removed from the shelves and replaced with whole natural food. If there were no such choice of selection between natural and unnatural existing and only natural food were on shelves, the consumers would automatically develop a sustainable consumption pattern.

The participants advocating sustainable food choices stated that obesity is a big problem, thus retailers should be urged to produce more healthy items to promote sustainable consumption patterns and behaviors. Another reasoning that emerged from the supportive group in the study is that healthy food is good for consumers, so, therefore, even if it is forced, it is for the benefit of the consumers.

Interestingly, some respondents stated that it is the obligation of the government to impose sustainable practices. They should play an active role in the process. Lastly, the argument also emerged that switching to sustainable consumption is essential because artificial methods of grown goods (inorganic food) are harmful to humans as well as the environment. Thus, there should be sustainable consumption practices, and it should be strictly imposed on all stakeholders for the betterment of societies and communities. The work of Mauri et al. [56] revealed that in the UK, the government has now included calories in restaurant menus. The study also revealed through the experiment that sugar is indeed not sustainable [56]. Hence, there are traces in recent times that efforts are made to create consumer awareness about their consumption patterns and unhealthy choices.

Although, in the present study, the disagreement ratio is higher than the agreed, there are traces for the sustainable producers too because over 40% agreed, which means that there is still optimism about the prevalence of sustainable items on shelves. It is possible that mainstream supermarkets can play a pivotal role in the promotion and growth of the sustainable food market.

The extracted themes of those supporting the work of Anselmsson and Johansson [5] have also underscored the efforts by food marketing managers to draw consumers' attention to sustainable products through creative merchandising. Yet, recent research shows consumers do not purchase ample amounts of sustainable food products to substantially support the attainment of sustainable development goals in the medium to long term [6,7]. Sustainable food products in the context of this paper refer to products that contribute to a single or a combination of economic, ecological, or social dimension(s) by virtue of their attributes or consequence [8,9].

The thematic analysis revealed that the change intervention has gradually reduced the pace of growth in the food industry, but the rate of consumer awareness is retained at a sustainable rate. Thus, this study partially supports the work of previous studies including [3,4,6,7]. Interestingly, our findings revealed that sustainable food products are viewed as ineffective in the short term while the market share of sustainable good items remains substantially low. Therefore, the present findings to a larger extent support the previous findings [7,32] whereas they reflect the concept of attitude-behavior gap [23–25] and the concept of green nudges [11,26–31].
