“Innovatives” or “Sceptics”: Views on Sustainable Food Packaging in the New Global Context by Generation Z Members of an Academic Community

Abstract

The growing concern over environmental sustainability has intensified the focus on consumers’ perceptions of eco-friendly food packaging, especially among younger generations. This study aims to investigate the attitudes, preferences, and barriers faced by Greek university students regarding sustainable food packaging, a demographic considered pivotal for driving future consumption trends. An online questionnaire assessing perceptions, preferences, and behaviours related to sustainable packaging was administered to students, with responses measured on a five-point Likert scale. Three hundred and sixty-four students took part in this survey, with the majority (60%) of them being female. Principal component analysis was employed to identify underlying factors influencing perceptions, and k-means cluster analysis revealed two consumer segments: “Innovatives”, including one hundred and ninety-eight participants (54%), who demonstrate strong environmental awareness and willingness to adopt sustainable behaviours, and “Sceptics”, including one hundred sixty-six participants (46%), who show moderate engagement and remain cautious in their choices. Convenience, affordability, and clear product communication emerged as significant factors shaping student preferences. The findings suggest that targeted educational campaigns and transparent information are essential to converting positive attitudes into consistent purchasing behaviours. This research provides valuable insights for policymakers and marketers looking to design effective sustainability strategies tailored to the student population.

1. Introduction

Environmental sustainability now heavily influences consumer decision-making in the food sector [1,2]. Generation Z (Gen-Z) is highly aware of the environmental impact of packaging waste and considers sustainable packaging a crucial component in protecting the environment and ensuring a healthier future [3,4]. This is particularly significant as Gen-Z is expected to become the dominant consumer group globally by 2030, accounting for approximately 40% of global consumers [5,6].

Students, as part of Gen Z, demonstrate a strong preference for eco-friendly packaging solutions, often seeking brands using packaging materials that align with their sustainability values [7,8]. Such materials are often recyclable, biodegradable, compostable, or made from renewable resources [9]. In general, sustainable food packaging refers to packaging solutions that minimise environmental impact throughout their lifecycle—from production and usage to disposal. In the food sector, sustainable packaging not only protects the product but also serves as a communication tool to convey environmental responsibility and influence consumer behaviour. The development of sustainable food packaging materials holds great significance for the preservation of food and the protection of the environment [10].

Despite strong stated commitments to sustainability, a gap remains between students’ eco-conscious attitudes and their actual purchasing behaviours [11,12]. Effective packaging design and clear communication of ecological content significantly shape consumer perceptions and purchasing decisions [13]. Moreover, cultural and regional differences play an essential role in consumer preferences for sustainable packaging, necessitating a localized approach [14,15].

Understanding student perceptions is, therefore, critical for developing effective sustainable packaging solutions [16,17]. This study aims to explore how students engage with and assess eco-friendly packaging, with the goal of identifying key motivators and barriers to the adoption of sustainable packaging in a global context [18]. This approach could contribute to explore the gap between students’ attitudes and behaviour.

Literature Review

The Brundtland Commission (1987) famously defined sustainability as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ [19]. This concept has since evolved into a multidimensional issue in environmental conservation and corporate responsibility [20,21]. With the escalating threat of climate change, ensuring that development does not compromise future generations has become a global priority [22].

Despite increasing environmental awareness, many consumers fail to translate their sustainability concerns into actual behaviour, a concept known as the attitude–behaviour gap [23]. Several studies indicate that this gap is influenced by multiple factors, including price, convenience, social norms, and perceived effectiveness of sustainability efforts [24]. In the context of food packaging, this gap becomes even more evident, as consumers often prioritise convenience over sustainability [25,26].

Sustainable food packaging is perceived differently across demographic and cultural groups [27,28]. Students tend to support eco-friendly packaging initiatives, as they are actively engaged in sustainability discussions and respond favourably to brands that emphasise environmental responsibility [29,30]. Studies indicate that effective packaging design plays a critical role in shaping consumer perceptions of sustainability [31,32]. Clear labelling, minimalistic design, and transparent communication about environmental benefits can significantly influence purchasing behaviour [33,34]. Innovative packaging materials (e.g., biodegradable, or compostable components) have also gained widespread consumer approval [35].

Van Birgelen et al. [4] examined the influence of packaging on purchase and disposal decisions, finding that environmentally conscious consumers (including students) are significantly swayed by eco-friendly packaging. Students were highly sensitive to the environmental impact of packaging, underscoring the importance of developing packaging solutions that enable sustainable habits [4].

Ketelsen, Janssen, and Hamm [36] conducted a systematic review revealing that consumer responses to environmentally friendly packaging are positive, and are driven by growing environmental awareness and concern over waste. However, despite these positive attitudes, Pålsson and Sandberg [37] identified various adoption barriers within food supply chains in South Africa and Sweden, emphasising the need for practical and scalable sustainable packaging practices [37]. Kurian et al. [38] further explored consumer perceptions in the e-commerce industry, finding that environmentally conscious consumers increasingly favour sustainable packaging options [38].

Heiniö et al. (2017) [39] conducted a survey to investigate the needs and wants of current and future Finnish and Dutch seniors regarding ready-made meal packaging. The study highlighted that seniors prioritise packaging features that offer convenience, ease of opening, and clear labelling [2]. Additionally, there was a significant interest in sustainable packaging solutions, reflecting a growing awareness and concern for environmental impacts among the senior population. This research underscores the importance of designing packaging that not only meets functional requirements but also aligns with the sustainability values of consumers.

In summary, multiple factors ranging from environmental education and cultural context to packaging design and technological advancements shape students’ perceptions of sustainable food packaging [2,5,6]. The literature suggests that bridging the attitude–behaviour gap and normalising ‘green’ behaviours (through education and effective design strategies) are essential to promote sustainable practices among students [2,8]. Overall, understanding these influences is crucial for developing packaging solutions that meet environmental standards and resonate with student values and expectations [3].

In this study, we evaluate and analyse Greek students’ responses about their perceptions on sustainable food packaging. To elaborate this research, based on the literature from diverse sources on food packaging sustainability perceptions, four factors assessing consumers’ opinions were examined:

• General perception of sustainability.
• Perceptions and attitudes towards current food packaging practices.
• Preferences for sustainable food packaging.
• Barriers and incentives for sustainable choices.

By investigating these factors, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of the motivations and deterrents influencing students’ sustainable choices. This will help in developing targeted strategies to enhance the adoption of sustainable packaging practices among students, contributing to broader environmental sustainability goals.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Survey Design and Data Collection

The study took place at the University of Ioannina, a city with approximately 112,000 residents in northwestern Greece. The University of Ioannina comprises seven schools and fifteen departments, with 30,000 enrolled students (Figure 1). Despite this number, the number of active students is approximately 60% of enrolled students (18,000 active students), due to the phenomenon of stagnant students in Greek universities. Approximately 20% of active students (undergraduate and postgraduate) do not belong to Generation Z and have been removed from the survey population. The final population of the survey amounts to 14,500 active students, and of these a total of 360 active students (who belong to Generation Z) were calculated as the total sample for the survey.

The sample of the survey is calculated using the Cochran equation for finite populations:

$$\mathrm{n} = {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{N} \times {\mathrm{Z}}^2 \times \mathrm{p} \times (1 - \mathrm{p})}{{\mathrm{e}}^2 \times (\mathrm{N} - 1) + {\mathrm{Z}}^2 \times \mathrm{p} \times (1 - \mathrm{p})}}$$

(1)

where:

-

N = 14,500 (population size).

-

Z = 1.96 (95% confidence level).

-

p = 0.5 (maximum variability).

-

e = 0.052 (5% error).

$$\mathrm{n}={\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{14,500} \times {\left(1.96\right)}^2 \times 0.5 \times 0.5)}{{\left(\right(0.052)}^2 \times (\mathrm{14,500}-1)+{\left(1.96\right)}^2 \times 0.5 \times 0.5)}} \iff \mathrm{n} \approx 360$$

(2)

n = approximately 360.

Four hundred questionnaires were distributed via the Google Forms platform, reaching members of the university community through their academic email addresses. Approval under GDPR regulations was granted by the relevant authority at the university, ensuring that all responses and associated emails remained anonymous. The final number of active students who filled out the questionnaire was 364 (4 students more than the calculated sample size).

This study utilized a structured questionnaire to gather data on the attitudes of university students. The questionnaire consisted of five sections: (1) Sociodemographic information (gender, age, employment status, and education level); (2) general perceptions of sustainability (5 questions); (3) perceptions and attitudes towards current food packaging practices (5 questions); (4) preferences for sustainable food packaging; and (5) perceived barriers and incentives for making sustainable choices. These sections, beyond demographics, were identified in the literature review as the part that formulates consumers’, and especially young consumers’, attitudes towards sustainable packaging. The whole questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

2.2. Data Analysis

All survey items assessing perceptions, preferences, and behaviours related to sustainable packaging were measured using a five-point Likert scale, where one indicated “Strongly disagree” and five indicated “Strongly agree.” For each item, descriptive statistics were computed, and the central tendency was summarised using the Likert mean score to provide a more nuanced representation of the respondents’ attitudes beyond raw frequency percentages [40,41].

To explore underlying patterns among the twenty-four perception-related Likert items, a principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was performed. PCA served as a data reduction technique, transforming the original correlated variables into a smaller set of uncorrelated components (factors), each representing a latent dimension of sustainability-related attitudes [42]. The suitability of the data for PCA was verified using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity [43]. Components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were retained. Only items with factor loadings above 0.5 were considered in the final interpretation. Internal consistency reliability for each extracted factor was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, with all α values exceeding the threshold of 0.70 [44].

Subsequently, the factor scores derived from PCA were used as inputs for cluster analysis. Initially, a hierarchical clustering analysis (Ward’s method and squared Euclidean distance) was used to determine the optimal number of clusters based on the agglomeration coefficients and dendrogram inspection. Following this, a k-means cluster analysis was conducted to classify participants into mutually exclusive and homogeneous consumer segments [43]. Each cluster represented a distinct perception profile toward sustainable packaging. Between-cluster differences were analysed using mean scores of the PCA-derived factors. As a final step, a binomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine which components significantly predicted cluster membership. The dependent variable (cluster membership) was dichotomized based on a median split of the total behavioural intention scale (1 = high intention, 0 = low-to-moderate). Independent predictors included all PCA components and key sociodemographic variables (gender, age group, and education level). Model fit was assessed via the Hosmer–Lemeshow test, and odds ratios were interpreted through the Exp(B) values and 95% confidence intervals [44].

All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). No responses were excluded from the dataset, ensuring full data integrity.

3. Results

Table 1 summarises the participants’ demographics. The sample was predominated by females (60.3%), mostly between 20 and 25 years old (43.5%), and largely composed of undergraduate students (53.6%). This distribution was expected, given the university student target group, as reported in other studies. [45,46].

The following tables present the key findings of the study, organised into the 4 distinct thematic categories identified through the literature review, to provide a comprehensive understanding of consumer perceptions and behaviours toward sustainable food packaging. Table 2 (General Perception of Sustainability) highlights respondents’ awareness and engagement with sustainability concepts, including their familiarity with terms like the “circular economy” and their prioritisation of environmental practices. Table 3 (Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Current Food Packaging Practices) explores consumers’ evaluations of existing packaging methods, focusing on environmental friendliness and the role of transparency in purchasing decisions. Table 4 (Preferences for Sustainable Food Packaging) delves into consumer willingness to adopt eco-friendly options, emphasising trade-offs such as cost and convenience. Finally, Table 5 (Barriers and Incentives for Sustainable Choices) identifies challenges and motivators influencing sustainable consumption, including affordability, accessibility, and trust in corporate practices.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characterisation of the sample.

Characteristics	Ν	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	142	39.7
Female	216	60.3
Age
18–20	81	23.3
20–25	152	43.5
25–28	107	30.2
Study Cycle
Undergraduate Student	195	53.6
Graduate Student	120	32.9
PhD Candidate	49	13.5
Working or not
Exclusively Student	230	63.2
Working Student	134	36.8

Table 1. Sociodemographic characterisation of the sample.

Characteristics	Ν	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	142	39.7
Female	216	60.3
Age
18–20	81	23.3
20–25	152	43.5
25–28	107	30.2
Study Cycle
Undergraduate Student	195	53.6
Graduate Student	120	32.9
PhD Candidate	49	13.5
Working or not
Exclusively Student	230	63.2
Working Student	134	36.8

Table 2 presents the mean scores for general sustainability perceptions among university students. The highest mean was observed in the frequency of engaging in environmentally friendly behaviours (M = 3.93), indicating a relatively high level of self-reported eco-consciousness in everyday life. In contrast, active information seeking regarding sustainable packaging scored lower (M = 2.86), suggesting a gap between general pro-environmental orientation and targeted behavioural involvement in packaging-related topics. Moderate scores were found in familiarity with the concept of the circular economy (M = 3.01) and knowledge of packaging’s environmental footprint (M = 3.25), pointing to potential areas for educational reinforcement. Overall, the findings highlight a trend of positive environmental attitudes but uneven depth of engagement across specific sustainability dimensions.

Table 2. General Perception of Sustainability.

Question Code	Items of General Perception of Sustainability	Mean Value *
Q1	How often do you engage in environmentally friendly behaviours in your daily life?	3.93
Q2	Are you actively seeking information about sustainable practices in food packaging?	2.86
Q3	How familiar are you with the term ‘circular economy’ in the context of food packaging?	3.01
Q4	Do you think companies should prioritise environmental sustainability in their packaging practices, even if it means higher costs for consumers?	3.64
Q5	How would you rate your knowledge of the environmental footprint of different food packaging materials?	3.24

* Note: Values range from one to five.

Table 2. General Perception of Sustainability.

Question Code	Items of General Perception of Sustainability	Mean Value *
Q1	How often do you engage in environmentally friendly behaviours in your daily life?	3.93
Q2	Are you actively seeking information about sustainable practices in food packaging?	2.86
Q3	How familiar are you with the term ‘circular economy’ in the context of food packaging?	3.01
Q4	Do you think companies should prioritise environmental sustainability in their packaging practices, even if it means higher costs for consumers?	3.64
Q5	How would you rate your knowledge of the environmental footprint of different food packaging materials?	3.24

* Note: Values range from one to five.

Table 3 summarises participants’ perceptions of current food packaging practices in relation to environmental sustainability. The data reveals a moderately positive orientation, with students generally acknowledging the importance of clear information on environmental footprint (M = 3.69) and expressing moderate levels of behaviour change due to sustainability concerns (M = 3.40). The strongest agreement was found in the belief that consumers play a critical role in pressuring companies toward sustainable packaging solutions (M = 3.90), highlighting an awareness of civic responsibility. However, perceptions of existing food packaging as environmentally friendly remained relatively neutral (M = 3.15), suggesting scepticism toward the current state of industry practices.

Table 3. Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Current Food Packaging Practices.

Question Code	Items of Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Current Food Packaging Practices	Mean Value *
Q6	Perception of current food packaging as environmentally friendly	3.15
Q7	Consideration of environmental footprint in purchase decisions	3.32
Q8	Importance of clear information on packaging footprint	3.69
Q9	Changed purchase due to sustainability concerns	3.40
Q10	Consumer role in pushing companies for sustainable packaging	3.90

* Note: Values range from one to five.

Table 3. Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Current Food Packaging Practices.

Question Code	Items of Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Current Food Packaging Practices	Mean Value *
Q6	Perception of current food packaging as environmentally friendly	3.15
Q7	Consideration of environmental footprint in purchase decisions	3.32
Q8	Importance of clear information on packaging footprint	3.69
Q9	Changed purchase due to sustainability concerns	3.40
Q10	Consumer role in pushing companies for sustainable packaging	3.90

* Note: Values range from one to five.

Table 4 presents participants’ preferences regarding sustainable food packaging. The highest rated item was the importance of packaging that extends shelf life and minimises waste (M = 3.77), underlining consumers’ concern with both environmental impact and functional performance. Participants also expressed strong interest in having a variety of sustainable packaging options (M = 3.65), reflecting a demand for flexibility and choice. However, perceptions of market sufficiency in terms of available sustainable packaging remained lower (M = 3.11), indicating a perceived gap in supply. While willingness to pay more for eco-friendly options was moderate (M = 3.32), the frequency of choosing such products (M = 3.41) suggests that values may not always fully translate into consistent consumer behaviour.

Table 4. Preferences for Sustainable Food Packaging.

Question Code	Items of Preferences for Sustainable Food Packaging	Mean Value *
Q11	Willingness to pay more for eco-friendly packaging	3.32
Q12	Frequency of choosing products with eco-friendly packaging	3.41
Q13	Sufficiency of sustainable packaging options in the market	3.11
Q14	Importance of variety in sustainable packaging	3.65
Q15	Importance of packaging that extends shelf life and reduces waste	3.77

* Note: Values range from one to five.

Table 4. Preferences for Sustainable Food Packaging.

Question Code	Items of Preferences for Sustainable Food Packaging	Mean Value *
Q11	Willingness to pay more for eco-friendly packaging	3.32
Q12	Frequency of choosing products with eco-friendly packaging	3.41
Q13	Sufficiency of sustainable packaging options in the market	3.11
Q14	Importance of variety in sustainable packaging	3.65
Q15	Importance of packaging that extends shelf life and reduces waste	3.77

* Note: Values range from one to five.

Table 5 summarises key perceived barriers and incentives related to sustainable food packaging choices. Affordability emerged as the most influential factor (M = 3.87), emphasising the leading role of price accessibility in shaping consumer adoption. This was closely followed by the importance of clear sustainability labels (M = 3.76) and trust in companies engaging in transparent practices (M = 3.64), underscoring the need for credibility and information clarity. While participants showed moderate willingness to recommend sustainable products based on packaging (M = 3.60), their perceived level of information regarding environmental footprint remained lower (M = 3.39), highlighting a persistent knowledge gap. Overall, these results point to a combination of financial, informational, and trust-related drivers that affect sustainable purchasing behaviour.

Table 5. Barriers and Incentives for Sustainable Choices.

Question Code	Items of Barriers and Incentives for Sustainable Choices	Mean Value *
Q16	Likelihood to recommend sustainable food based on packaging	3.60
Q17	Feeling sufficiently informed about packaging’s environmental footprint	3.39
Q18	Importance of clear sustainability labels on packaging	3.76
Q19	Trust in companies adopting transparent sustainable practices	3.64
Q20	Importance of affordability of sustainable packaging options	3.87

* Note: Values range from one to five.

Table 5. Barriers and Incentives for Sustainable Choices.

Question Code	Items of Barriers and Incentives for Sustainable Choices	Mean Value *
Q16	Likelihood to recommend sustainable food based on packaging	3.60
Q17	Feeling sufficiently informed about packaging’s environmental footprint	3.39
Q18	Importance of clear sustainability labels on packaging	3.76
Q19	Trust in companies adopting transparent sustainable practices	3.64
Q20	Importance of affordability of sustainable packaging options	3.87

* Note: Values range from one to five.

The results of the principal component analysis (PCA) are presented in Table 6, displaying the factor loadings and communalities for all retained items. Four distinct components were extracted using Varimax rotation with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, cumulatively explaining 63.5% of the total variance, which is considered satisfactory for social science research [47]. Items with loadings ≥ 0.50 were considered significant and retained in their respective components. All communalities were above the acceptable threshold of 0.24, indicating that the retained components accounted for a satisfactory proportion of each item’s variance. This confirms the suitability of the extracted structure and supports the internal consistency of the factors, which is validated by Cronbach’s α coefficients.

Table 6 also summarises the internal consistency and explanatory power of the four extracted factors. The reliability of each factor was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, all of which exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, indicating strong internal consistency. Specifically, Factor 1 exhibited the highest reliability (α = 0.885), followed by Factor 4 (α = 0.816), Factor 2 (α = 0.823), and Factor 3 (α = 0.794).

These results indicate that the identified structure adequately captures the multidimensional nature of students’ perceptions and behaviours regarding sustainable food packaging.

Table 6. Principal Component Analysis—Factor Loadings and Communalities.

Properties	Code	Communalities	Fact 1	Fact 2	Fact 3	Fact 4
Trust in companies adopting transparent sustainable practices	Q19	0.576	0.759
Importance of affordability of sustainable packaging options	Q20	0.542	0.736
Importance of clear sustainability labels on packaging	Q18	0.517	0.719
Importance of variety in sustainable packaging	Q14	0.454	0.674
Consumer role in pushing companies for sustainable packaging	Q10	0.442	0.665
Companies should prioritise environmental sustainability in their packaging practices, even if it means higher costs for consumers?	Q4	0.442	0.665
Willingness to pay more for eco-friendly packaging	Q11	0.415	0.644
Importance of packaging that extends shelf life and reduces waste	Q15	0.393	0.627
Considering of environmental footprint in purchase decisions	Q7	0.655		0.809
Changed purchase due to sustainability concerns	Q9	0.638		0.799
Frequency of choosing products with eco-friendly packaging	Q12	0.532		0.729
Likelihood to recommend sustainable food based on packaging	Q16	0.354		0.595
Importance of clear information on packaging footprint	Q8	0.349		0.591
Knowledge rate of the environmental footprint of different food packaging materials	Q5	0.579			0.761
Familiarity with the term ‘circular economy’ in the context of food packaging?	Q3	0.555			0.745
Feeling sufficiently informed about packaging’s environmental footprint	Q17	0.473			0.688
Actively seeking information about sustainable practices in food packaging	Q2	0.389			0.624
Engaging in environmentally friendly behaviours in daily life	Q1	0.244			0.494
Sufficiency of sustainable packaging options in the market	Q13	0.667				0.817
Perception of current food packaging as environmentally friendly	Q6	0.661				0.813
Cronbach’s a reliability test			0.885	0.823	0.794	0.816
Eigenvalues			5.64	3.21	2.65	1.94
Percentage of variance explained			24.3%	17.8%	13.7%	7.7%
Total variance %			63.5%

Table 6. Principal Component Analysis—Factor Loadings and Communalities.

Properties	Code	Communalities	Fact 1	Fact 2	Fact 3	Fact 4
Trust in companies adopting transparent sustainable practices	Q19	0.576	0.759
Importance of affordability of sustainable packaging options	Q20	0.542	0.736
Importance of clear sustainability labels on packaging	Q18	0.517	0.719
Importance of variety in sustainable packaging	Q14	0.454	0.674
Consumer role in pushing companies for sustainable packaging	Q10	0.442	0.665
Companies should prioritise environmental sustainability in their packaging practices, even if it means higher costs for consumers?	Q4	0.442	0.665
Willingness to pay more for eco-friendly packaging	Q11	0.415	0.644
Importance of packaging that extends shelf life and reduces waste	Q15	0.393	0.627
Considering of environmental footprint in purchase decisions	Q7	0.655		0.809
Changed purchase due to sustainability concerns	Q9	0.638		0.799
Frequency of choosing products with eco-friendly packaging	Q12	0.532		0.729
Likelihood to recommend sustainable food based on packaging	Q16	0.354		0.595
Importance of clear information on packaging footprint	Q8	0.349		0.591
Knowledge rate of the environmental footprint of different food packaging materials	Q5	0.579			0.761
Familiarity with the term ‘circular economy’ in the context of food packaging?	Q3	0.555			0.745
Feeling sufficiently informed about packaging’s environmental footprint	Q17	0.473			0.688
Actively seeking information about sustainable practices in food packaging	Q2	0.389			0.624
Engaging in environmentally friendly behaviours in daily life	Q1	0.244			0.494
Sufficiency of sustainable packaging options in the market	Q13	0.667				0.817
Perception of current food packaging as environmentally friendly	Q6	0.661				0.813
Cronbach’s a reliability test			0.885	0.823	0.794	0.816
Eigenvalues			5.64	3.21	2.65	1.94
Percentage of variance explained			24.3%	17.8%	13.7%	7.7%
Total variance %			63.5%

The results of the PCA are leading to a need to revise the structure of factors affecting students’, at least those of University of Ioannina, perceptions on sustainable food packaging. This PCA revealed four factors, with different components, that can be used to explain students’ behaviour. The first and most dominant factor could be the names used, as “Sustainability-Aligned Consumer Values” highlights the extent to which students support sustainable packaging on ethical and normative grounds. This factor reflects students’ endorsement of transparent company practices, affordability, labelling clarity, product variety, and willingness to pay more for sustainability. It also includes perceptions about consumer responsibility and the prioritisation of sustainability even at increased cost. These results align with the existing literature emphasising Gen Z’s strong environmental values and expectations for corporate responsibility.

The second factor, labelled as “Environmentally Conscious Consumption Behaviour”, reflects actual purchasing behaviour influenced by environmental concerns, such as choosing eco-friendly packaging, altering buying decisions, and recommending sustainable options. This behaviour-based dimension provides evidence that a segment of students are not only value-driven but also translates these values into concrete actions, albeit not universally.

The third factor, labelled as “Environmental Literacy and Engagement”, underscores the cognitive aspect of sustainability. Items related to knowledge of packaging materials, awareness of concepts like the circular economy, and active information-seeking loaded strongly on this factor. These findings are consistent with research showing that informed consumers are more likely to adopt sustainable consumption behaviours.

The final factor, labelled as “Perceived Market Readiness”, pertains to students’ perceptions of the availability and ecological effectiveness of sustainable packaging options in the market. Participants who scored high on this factor viewed the current offerings as sufficient and environmentally friendly.

In the next part of the analysis a Κ means cluster analysis was performed using only the questions with the highest factor loadings from the PCA. In this way questions, Q19: “Trust in companies adopting transparent sustainable practices”, Q7: “Consideration of environmental footprint in purchase decisions”, Q5: “Knowledge rate of the environmental footprint of different food packaging materials”, and Q13: “Sufficiency of sustainable packaging options in the market” took part in the analysis. This way two clusters were created, where the first cluster included 169 participants (46%), while the second cluster included 198 participants (54%).

Table 7. Mean values in questions used in cluster analysis for the two clusters.

Question Code	Question	Mean Value *
		Cluster 1	Cluster 2
Q19	Trust in companies adopting transparent sustainable practices	3.036	4.167
Q7	Considering of environmental footprint in purchase decisions	1.580	3.232
Q5	Knowledge rate of the environmental footprint of different food packaging materials	2.189	3.338
Q13	Sufficiency of sustainable packaging options in the market	2.272	2.808

* Note: Values range from one to five.

presents the mean values for the two clusters of the questions used in the cluster analysis.

The cluster plot visually represents (Figure 2) the segmentation of respondents into the two distinct clusters. The first dimension (Dim1), accounting for 42.9% of the variance, and the second dimension (Dim2), accounting for 24.2%, together explain 67.1% of the total variability in the data, indicating a robust model fit. Cluster 1 (depicted in blue) represents the group of respondents classified as “sceptics”, demonstrating more reserved or cautious attitudes towards sustainable packaging practices. Cluster 2 (depicted in orange) comprises respondents identified as “Innovatives”, showing a more proactive and positive orientation towards environmental sustainability and the adoption of eco-friendly packaging.

The clear separation between the two clusters illustrates distinct behavioural and attitudinal patterns among participants. Most observations are concentrated within the respective cluster boundaries, indicating strong internal homogeneity. Respondents positioned near the boundary line represent individuals with intermediate attitudes, yet they were categorized according to the predominant trend in their responses. The cluster plot confirms that the analysis effectively differentiated the sample into two meaningful and interpretable consumer segments, providing valuable insights into the diversity of perceptions towards sustainable food packaging.

The first Cluster named “Sceptics” represents consumers who display a lower level of environmental awareness and engagement in sustainable practices. (see Table 8 for an analytical comparison of two clusters). Participants in this group tend to be more hesitant in adopting sustainable packaging behaviours and exhibit more conservative perceptions about eco-packaging initiatives. A notable portion of respondents in this cluster show limited familiarity with concepts, such as the circular economy, while they report lower frequency in engaging in eco-friendly behaviours and are less likely to actively seek information on sustainability topics. For example, their agreement on actively seeking sustainability information and changing behaviour based on packaging sustainability is particularly low. In terms of packaging perceptions, “Sceptics” demonstrate moderate concern for environmental impacts but are significantly less likely to evaluate packaging sustainability when making purchase decisions or to value packaging features like eco-labels and shelf-life extension. They are also less willing to pay a premium for sustainable packaging and believe that current packaging options do not adequately meet sustainability standards. Regarding barriers and incentives, this group feels less informed about packaging-related environmental impacts, and they are less likely to recommend food products based on sustainable packaging characteristics.

In summary, this segment reflects a consumer profile with reserved environmental behaviour, weaker engagement with sustainability themes, and scepticism toward the current state and future of sustainable packaging. They form a sizeable portion (46.1%) of the sample, thus representing a critical challenge for marketers and policy designers aiming to increase adoption of eco-packaging in this segment.

Table 8. Cluster Profiles.

Clusters Characteristics	Code	First Cluster: “Sceptics”	Second Cluster: “Innovators”
Factor 1: Sustainability-Aligned Consumer Values
Trust in companies adopting transparent sustainable practices	Q19	3.04	4.17
Importance of affordability of sustainable packaging options	Q20	3.75	4.43
Importance of clear sustainability labels on packaging	Q18	2.86	4.09
Importance of variety in sustainable packaging	Q14	2.63	3.86
Consumer role in pushing companies for sustainable packaging	Q10	3.55	4.25
Companies should prioritise environmental sustainability in their packaging practices, even if it means higher costs for consumers?	Q4	3.23	3.93
Willingness to pay more for eco-friendly packaging	Q11	2.68	3.62
Importance of packaging that extends shelf life and reduces waste	Q15	3.76	4.43
Factor 2: Environmentally Conscious Consumption Behaviour
Considering environmental footprints in purchase decisions	Q7	1.58	3.23
Changed purchase due to sustainability concerns	Q9	1.73	3.03
Frequency of choosing products with eco-friendly packaging	Q12	1.92	3.30
Likelihood to recommend sustainable food based on packaging	Q16	2.28	3.56
Importance of clear information on packaging footprint	Q8	2.60	3.94
Factor 3: Environmental Literacy and Engagement
Knowledge rate of the environmental footprint of different food packaging materials	Q5	2.19	3.34
Familiarity with the term ‘circular economy’ in the context of food packaging?	Q3	1.72	2.72
Feeling sufficiently informed about packaging’s environmental footprint	Q17	1.82	2.73
Seeking active information about sustainable practices in food packaging	Q2	1.76	3.02
Engaging in environmentally friendly behaviours in daily life	Q1	2.77	3.54
Factor 4: “Perceived Market Readiness”
Sufficiency of sustainable packaging options in the market	Q13	2.27	2.81
Perception of current food packaging as environmentally friendly	Q6	2.25	2.42

Table 8. Cluster Profiles.

Clusters Characteristics	Code	First Cluster: “Sceptics”	Second Cluster: “Innovators”
Factor 1: Sustainability-Aligned Consumer Values
Trust in companies adopting transparent sustainable practices	Q19	3.04	4.17
Importance of affordability of sustainable packaging options	Q20	3.75	4.43
Importance of clear sustainability labels on packaging	Q18	2.86	4.09
Importance of variety in sustainable packaging	Q14	2.63	3.86
Consumer role in pushing companies for sustainable packaging	Q10	3.55	4.25
Companies should prioritise environmental sustainability in their packaging practices, even if it means higher costs for consumers?	Q4	3.23	3.93
Willingness to pay more for eco-friendly packaging	Q11	2.68	3.62
Importance of packaging that extends shelf life and reduces waste	Q15	3.76	4.43
Factor 2: Environmentally Conscious Consumption Behaviour
Considering environmental footprints in purchase decisions	Q7	1.58	3.23
Changed purchase due to sustainability concerns	Q9	1.73	3.03
Frequency of choosing products with eco-friendly packaging	Q12	1.92	3.30
Likelihood to recommend sustainable food based on packaging	Q16	2.28	3.56
Importance of clear information on packaging footprint	Q8	2.60	3.94
Factor 3: Environmental Literacy and Engagement
Knowledge rate of the environmental footprint of different food packaging materials	Q5	2.19	3.34
Familiarity with the term ‘circular economy’ in the context of food packaging?	Q3	1.72	2.72
Feeling sufficiently informed about packaging’s environmental footprint	Q17	1.82	2.73
Seeking active information about sustainable practices in food packaging	Q2	1.76	3.02
Engaging in environmentally friendly behaviours in daily life	Q1	2.77	3.54
Factor 4: “Perceived Market Readiness”
Sufficiency of sustainable packaging options in the market	Q13	2.27	2.81
Perception of current food packaging as environmentally friendly	Q6	2.25	2.42

The second cluster named “Innovators” consists of consumers who show strong environmental awareness, greater willingness to adopt sustainable behaviours, and initiative-taking support for eco-packaging initiatives. Participants in this group report high agreement on questions such as actively seeking sustainability information, supporting sustainable companies and being familiar with environmental terms like “circular economy”. This indicates an elevated level of environmental consciousness and alignment with modern sustainability narratives. When it comes to packaging perceptions, Innovators exhibit consistently strong opinions. They value clear eco-labels, actively consider the environmental footprint during purchases, and appreciate packaging that contributes to food preservation and waste reduction. Notably, they also express dedicated support for the availability of a variety of sustainable packaging options in the market. In terms of preferences, this group is far more willing to pay more for eco-friendly packaging, search for transparent production practices, and make deliberate purchase choices based on sustainability credentials. Their behaviour reflects an initiative-taking stance in integrating sustainability into everyday consumption. From a barrier and incentive standpoint, Innovators feel well-informed and show a higher likelihood to recommend food products based on their packaging sustainability.

Overall, Cluster 2 represents the forward-thinking segment of the population, forming most of the sample (53.9%). These consumers can serve as early adopters and influencers for broader sustainability transitions, and their attitudes are critical for designing effective outreach, branding, and educational campaigns.

In the next part of the analysis, a logistic regression analysis was performed to identify environmental attitudes and sustainable packaging-related beliefs that determine which ones define cluster membership. For this reason, all questions and variables were used in the analysis but here only the statistically significant are presented (see

Table 9. Binomial logistic regression results predicting students’ participation in clusters.

Code	Variable (Question)	Coefficient B (β)	S.E.	Wald Statistic	Wald Sig.	Odds Ratio
Q18	Importance of clear sustainability labels on packaging	0.423	0.222	1.908	0.056 **	1.527
Q17	Feeling sufficiently informed about packaging’s environmental footprint	0.659	0.191	3.317	<0.001 ***	1.932
Q12	Frequency of choosing products with eco-friendly packaging	0.383	0.229	1.670	0.095 *	1.467
Q8	Importance of clear information on packaging footprint	0.660	0.199	3.3175	<0.001 ***	1.936
Q6	Perception of current food packaging as environmentally friendly	0.672	0.211	3.1919	0.001 ***	1.960
Q2	Seeking active information about sustainable practices in food packaging	0.497	0.212	2.342	0.019 **	1.645
n/a	Intercept	−11.24503	1.526	−7.3675	<0.001 ***	1.31 × 10−5

Note: All predictor variables were treated as single-item Likert-type scale items, measured on a 5-point agreement scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The odds ratios represent the change in odds of supporting sustainable packaging for each unit increase in agreement with the corresponding statement. R² = 0.667 (Nagelkerke); Significance levels: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

).

The estimation was conducted following methodologies used in prior studies on behavioural intention and sustainability [47,48], using the forward stepwise method, and retaining only those variables that demonstrated statistically significant effects. The model exhibited a satisfactory fit and achieved strong classification performance, with an overall prediction accuracy of 84.8%, sensitivity of 84.3%, specificity of 85.5%, and an AUC of 0.926.

As presented in Table 9, six variables emerged as statistically significant determinants of cluster membership. The strongest marginal effect was attributed to the “Perception of current food packaging as environmentally friendly”, with a coefficient of β = 0.672 (p = 0.001) and odds ratio = 1.960, indicating that if students belonging in the “sceptics” cluster change their perceptions about current food packaging as environmentally friendly, then this change has almost double (1.96) the changes to move to the “innovators” cluster. Similarly, positive associations were identified for the other variables that participated in the model.

The results suggest that informational awareness and positive perceptions of market offerings are the most powerful predictors of environmental consciousness among students. This aligns with the earlier factor “Environmental Literacy and Engagement” and highlights the role of knowledge empowerment and perception shaping in fostering sustainable consumer identities. Interestingly, the behavioural variable “Frequency of choosing products with eco-friendly packaging” was less predictive than cognitive or perceptual ones, reinforcing the common finding in sustainability research that awareness and values may precede consistent behaviour. Marketing campaigns and educational initiatives that enhance transparency, information clarity, and consumer perception of packaging sustainability may, therefore, be especially effective in shaping environmental consciousness and determining eco-friendly packaging decision making.

4. Discussion

This study provides valuable insights into Greek university students’ perceptions and attitudes toward sustainable food packaging. By identifying two distinct consumer profiles, “Innovatives” and “Sceptics”, we highlight the diversity of environmental engagement within this demographic.

The results of this study confirm that university students are increasingly aware of environmental challenges associated with food packaging. The clear tendency of respondents to prioritise sustainable solutions, even when faced with trade-offs in price or convenience, aligns with findings from previous research emphasising the environmentally conscious nature of younger consumers [49,50]. However, the presence of two distinct clusters—“Innovatives” and “Sceptics”—demonstrates that not all students translate environmental awareness into concrete behaviour, a phenomenon supported by the attitude–behaviour gap observed in numerous sustainability studies [51,52].

In this study, the “Innovatives” group showed high mean values on factors related to perceived importance of sustainable packaging and trust in clear communication, reflecting their readiness to adopt eco-friendly behaviours. In contrast, “Sceptics” displayed more cautious patterns, echoing studies where scepticism arises from lack of trust in corporate green claims [53,54]. Importantly, affordability emerged as a barrier across both groups, underlining the price-sensitivity of young consumers—a challenge similarly highlighted by Nguyen et al. [55].

The principal component analysis confirmed four key factors shaping perceptions: environmental behaviour, current packaging perceptions, sustainable packaging preferences, and barriers/incentives. These components align with frameworks proposed in prior research exploring multi-dimensional sustainability attitudes [56]. These findings emphasise that successful packaging strategies need to address all these aspects simultaneously rather than focusing on environmental messaging alone [57,58]. From a practical perspective, policymakers and marketers should consider designing targeted communication strategies that enhance trust and transparency, while simultaneously addressing price concerns [59]. Educational campaigns in university settings could particularly influence “Sceptics” by reducing doubts and clarifying the benefits of sustainable packaging [60]. Furthermore, packaging innovation that combines environmental friendliness with practicality remains a crucial avenue for product designers.

Our findings underline the importance of clear communication, affordability, and trust in encouraging sustainable purchasing behaviour. While “Innovatives” are ready to embrace sustainable solutions, “Sceptics” require targeted communication and education to bridge the gap between awareness and action. These results suggest that tailored strategies are essential for influencing younger consumers and promoting more sustainable practices in food packaging.

Future studies should build on this work, exploring how evolving market conditions and policy changes may shape consumer behaviour in different socio-cultural contexts. Future research could expand this study beyond the student demographic to include working professionals or households with children, who may prioritise different sustainability attributes. Additionally, cross-country comparisons could offer deeper insight into the influence of cultural and socioeconomic factors. Longitudinal studies may also reveal whether these attitudes persist or evolve as Generation Z enters the workforce and gains purchasing power.

5. Conclusions

To sum up the findings, this study offers a meaningful contribution to the fields of sustainable marketing and consumer behaviour by identifying key psychological and behavioural factors that influence students’ engagement with sustainable food packaging. The extracted factors—Sustainability-Aligned Consumer Values, Environmentally Conscious Consumption Behaviour, Environmental Literacy and Engagement, and Perceived Market Readiness—provide a multidimensional framework for understanding green consumer typologies among Gen Z students.

These insights can inform targeted “green” marketing strategies that align with specific consumer profiles. For instance, consumers with high environmental literacy are more likely to respond to detailed information about packaging sustainability, while less engaged consumers may benefit from simplified, visually prominent eco-labels. Additionally, the strong predictive power of informational and perceptual variables—such as feeling sufficiently informed, valuing clear packaging information, and perceiving packaging as eco-friendly—highlights the importance of transparency and education in shaping environmental consciousness.

Beyond marketing applications, the study underscores the potential for shaping more environmentally responsible consumers through increased awareness and knowledge. The results suggest that environmental literacy and values play a more central role in predicting green group membership than behaviour alone, which points to the need for campaigns and educational initiatives that emphasise not only actions but also understanding. Universities, NGOs, and food sector stakeholders can leverage these insights to foster a culture of sustainability among young consumers by improving access to information, promoting transparency, and reinforcing sustainability as a core generational identity.

Ultimately, this research bridges the gap between attitudes and behaviours, and provides a data-driven foundation for more effective, inclusive, and impactful strategies that advance sustainable consumption and packaging practices.