| Lombardi et al. |
2017 |
Italy |
Choice experiments and focus groups, assessing attitudes toward “climate neutral” vs. organic milk before and after information on climate change. |
Low initial preference for carbon labels; importance of “climate neutral” milk increased post-intervention, but organic preference decreased (label competition). |
| Goddard et al. |
2019 |
Canada |
Data from two Canadian national surveys (2016-2017) were analyzed using cluster analysis and ordered probit regressions to link moral foundations with consumer choices. |
Respondents endorsing individualizing moral foundations were more likely to buy sustainable dairy and to support stricter livestock environmental and disease control standards. |
| Gao et al. |
2020 |
China |
Surveyed Chinese consumers on sustainable milk, linking perceptions, quality awareness, and demographics. |
Most lack sustainability knowledge; WTP for sustainable milk averages 40%, higher for parents, boosted by quality link. |
| Nam et al. |
2020 |
South Korea |
Study with 450 Koreans used a choice experiment and logit models to assess WTP for milk attributes. |
Milk from mountain farms was most valued (+$0.67/L), with higher WTP among women, youth, parents, and wealthier consumers. |
| Sánchez-Bravo et al. |
2020 |
Spain, USA, New Zealand |
A 6-country study (3,600 participants) developed a sustainability perception scale using ANOVA, PCA, and clustering. |
High-income consumers in Brazil and China value milk traceability; 40.2% prefer clean-label dairy for sustainability. |
| Zhao et al. |
2020 |
China, North Carolina State University |
A three-step study (focus groups, auction, field experiment) with 282 Chinese students tested responses and WTP for carbon-labeled milk. |
Price was the key factor, with a 3.2% premium accepted for carbon-labeled milk; taste, nutrition, and labels also influenced choices. |
| Schiano et al. |
2020 |
EUA |
Focus groups and online surveys assessed consumer perceptions of sustainability, health, ethics, and trust in dairy and plant-based products. |
Consumers prioritize low carbon footprint, few additives, animal welfare, and clear labels; plant-based alternatives are seen as most sustainable. |
| Brumă et al. |
2021
|
Romania |
A mixed-methods study in Suceava, Romania (n=447) analyzed dairy purchasing habits during COVID-19 using surveys and ethnographic insights. |
Suceava’s direct-to-consumer dairy market is growing, with demand for healthy, sustainable products via short supply chains, though small producers face challenges. |
| Chang & Chen |
2022
|
Taiwan |
An online survey of 653 Taiwanese fresh milk consumers analyzed moral, attitudinal, and behavioral factors using a 7-point Likert scale. |
Consumers value quality, safety, traceability, and producer credibility; trust in certification strongly drives purchase intentions. |
| Papoutsi et al. |
2023
|
Greece |
Interviews with 403 consumers assessed willingness to pay (WTP) for ethical labels on feta cheese. |
Willingness to pay (WTP) values are affected by demographic characteristics as well as attitudinal variables |
| Jin et al. |
202 4 |
China, United Kingdom |
Online surveys in China (n=1,515) and the UK (n=1,656) assessed traceability perceptions and purchase intentions for beef, milk, and apples using path analysis. |
Perceived sustainability traceability boosts purchase intentions, especially for beef, with stronger effects in the UK influenced by pro-environmental attitudes. |
| Cunha et al. |
2024 |
Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Italy |
A total of 1,417 interviews were conducted across selected countries, collecting data on four ranked choices (from most to least sustainable), sociodemographic characteristics, and whether price was mentioned. |
Choice of eco-friendly foods was shaped by country, gender, income, education, and individual values and attitudes. |
| Ammann et al. |
2024 |
Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom |
The EU Horizon 2020 SUPER-G study surveyed 3,189 participants from five European countries in 2021 on meat and dairy purchases, sustainability perceptions, and trust using 1-5 scales. |
Freshness, quality, and animal welfare were top priorities; sustainability labels help but rarely drive behavior alone. |
| Aizaki & Takeshita |
2023 |
Europe, Japan |
An international survey (1,030 per country) used best-worst scaling to rank 11 sustainable dairy activities and compare preferences across countries, genders, and ages. |
GHG reduction ranked highest in UK, Netherlands, Italy; biodiversity in France; milk safety in Japan; preferences varied by country, age, and gender. |
| Li et al. |
2023 |
China |
The study analyzed 542 Chinese web texts on agricultural traceability using LDA to identify key factors affecting quality and safety. |
Farmers, enterprises, distributors, governments, and consumers all influence traceability; standardization boosts transparency, trust, and green demand fulfillment. |
| Vaikma et al. |
202 5 |
Estonia, Sweden, Italy |
A three-phase online study surveyed 1,000 participants on sustainability perceptions and product choices, analyzing demographic segments and country differences. |
Sustainability perceptions vary by product: ingredients matter most, packaging impacts differ, and storage is least influential, showing a complex, multidimensional view. |
| Burstow et al. |
2025 |
Australia |
A three-phase online study surveyed 1,000 participants on sustainability perceptions task to link demographics and product choices to perceptions. |
Conscious consumers value ecolabels, but confusion and greenwashing limit their impact; labels work best alongside familiar product information. |
Percepção do consumidor sobre sustentabilidade na compra de produtos lácteos em diferentes contextos socioeconômicos
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
