Drivers, Barriers, and Innovations in Sustainable Food Consumption: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I like a lot to the article.

The only thing that I advise you to better explain is:

On page 4, the authors state, "The search was limited to publications between 2015 and 2024 to capture recent 130 developments and trends." . However, a question arises: why 2015 and not 2016 or 2014? What did the authors mean by recent?

Author Response

Comment 1: The only thing that I advise you to better explain is: On page 4, the authors state, "The search was limited to publications between 2015 and 2024 to capture recent 130 developments and trends." . However, a question arises: why 2015 and not 2016 or 2014? What did the authors mean by recent?

Response: 

Dear reviewer,

First, we sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and your appreciation of our paper. Your comment helps us clarify our methodological choices.

The selection of the 2015-2024 period is justified by the fact that 2015 marks the adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a milestone that significantly influenced global sustainability policies, corporate strategies, and consumer awareness regarding sustainable food consumption. This shift led to an increased emphasis on responsible production, food waste reduction, and ethical sourcing. Additionally, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change was also adopted in 2015, reinforcing global commitments to environmental sustainability, including within the food sector.

The choice of 2015 rather than 2014 or 2016 ensures that our review aligns with the most recent and relevant body of research that has developed in response to these transformative global agreements. While studies on sustainability existed before 2015, our aim was to capture research conducted after these global frameworks began shaping policies, regulations, and technological advancements, such as blockchain for food traceability, AI-driven food waste solutions, and alternative proteins.

Moreover, defining "recent" in academic research typically refers to literature published within the last decade. Given the rapid evolution of sustainability science and policy, the 2015-2024 range allows us to focus on the most up-to-date findings without incorporating older data that may not fully reflect current challenges, trends, and innovations. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) on food consumption patterns further reinforces the importance of reviewing literature published after 2015, as it reflects changing consumer priorities related to food security, health, and sustainability.

We hope this explanation clarifies our rationale, and we thank you once again for your valuable input.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article should include a cluster analysis that would allow the information to be better systematised
This analysis should be done by reading the final outputs obtained with the PRISMA protocol in the VOSVIEWER or R BIBLIOMERIX software.
Good luck with this research

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of a cluster analysis to improve the systematization of findings. In response to your recommendation, we have conducted a bibliometric clustering analysis using the final outputs obtained through the PRISMA protocol.

Our approach involved:

1. Applying the k-means clustering algorithm to identify major thematic groups within the reviewed literature.
2. Using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to visualize the spatial distribution of clusters, ensuring a clear differentiation of research themes.
3. Constructing a similarity network to illustrate the interconnections between key research areas, highlighting conceptual overlaps and interdisciplinary potential.

Key Findings:

• We identified five dominant research clusters covering topics such as organic food consumption, sustainability and food waste, plant-based diets, citizen engagement, and local/seasonal food choices.
• The cluster network analysis revealed strong thematic relationships, particularly between sustainability issues and consumer engagement in sustainable food systems.
• A temporal analysis of bibliometric trends further illustrated the evolution of research priorities in sustainable food consumption over time.

The results of this clustering analysis have been integrated into the revised manuscript, providing a structured framework for understanding the major themes and research gaps in the literature. We believe that this addition enhances the clarity and contribution of our study by offering a more systematized perspective on the field.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has strengthened our analysis. We welcome any further suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attach file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback is highly valuable, and we have carefully addressed each of your points to improve the clarity, structure, and organization of our paper. Below, we provide our responses to your specific comments:

1. Regarding the length and descriptiveness of the Results and Discussion sections:

   • We acknowledge that these sections were quite detailed and, as a result, could be overwhelming for the reader.
   • To enhance readability, we have streamlined the discussion, ensuring that key findings are presented more concisely, while retaining all necessary insights.
   • Redundant or overly detailed explanations have been removed or summarized to maintain clarity and engagement.

2. Regarding the numbering and ordering of references:

   • We have thoroughly revised the reference section and ensured that all citations are numbered in the order they appear in the text, following the required citation format.
   • This adjustment enhances the flow of the manuscript and improves readability.

3. Checking missing and extra references:

   • We have carefully cross-checked all references to ensure that each one cited in the text appears in the reference list, and vice versa.
   • Any missing references have been added, and any unnecessary references that were not cited have been removed to maintain consistency.

4. Reducing the size of tables in the text:

   • We have numbered the tables systematically, and where necessary, adjusted their formatting to make them more compact.
   • This reduces the visual load on the reader while maintaining the clarity and comprehensibility of the presented data.

5. Thorough review of the manuscript:

   • We have carefully proofread and revised the entire text, ensuring consistency, coherence, and clarity.
   • This review included refining sentence structure, correcting minor formatting inconsistencies, and enhancing readability throughout the manuscript.

We truly appreciate your insightful suggestions, which have helped us enhance the quality and clarity of our study. We believe that these revisions significantly improve the manuscript and align it with the journal’s standards. Thank you once again for your valuable input, and we look forward to any further recommendations you may have.

Best regards,

Th authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article is written on a relevant topic. The tasks are correct. The methods are chosen appropriately to reveal the topic of the paper, fulfill the task and achieve the goal. The author set out to identify the dominant motivations, obstacles, technological advances, and corporate initiatives that influence sustainable food consumption. The article focuses on studies published between 2015 and 2024 on the impact of factors on sustainable food consumption. The authors analyze patterns in economic, geographic, and socio-behavioral contexts. The findings confirm the thesis that health concerns and environmental awareness are the main drivers of sustainable food consumption, complemented by ethical values, taste perception, and social norms. The researchers also drew attention to economic constraints, limited product availability, lack of awareness, and behavioral inertia, which significantly hinder this. It is worth noting that technological advances, such as digital platforms, AI-based food safety solutions, blockchains for traceability, and alternative proteins, are creating opportunities to address these challenges. Corporate initiatives such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), fair trade programs, and eco-labeling are further increasing consumer trust and accessibility. This study provides insight into key research gaps, including cross-cultural differences, long-term behavioral change, and the impact of digital interventions. A valuable component of the article is that the involvement of multiple stakeholders from academia, business, and policy makers is crucial to developing comprehensive strategies for the transition to a more sustainable and resilient food system.

However, the article needs to be improved:

1) The selection of authors from 136 articles in Web of Science (79) and SCOPUS (57) should be justified in more detail. The article only mentions the SLR methodology and PRISMA, but does not explain why the sample of 85 articles is relevant and reliable. It would be worthwhile for the authors to provide mathematical calculations to confirm this fact, rather than just provide a verbal description.

2) Tables Table 3. The temporal evolution of the categories of motivations and Table 9. The temporal evolution of the categories of technology in dataset should be presented in a graphical format for better interpretation of the data.

3. The authors conclude that “Until sustainability is as convenient and affordable as conventional food, it remains a privileged option rather than a universal norm”. This thesis should be substantiated more. Indicate on the basis of which studies this conclusion was made.

The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner. It has a sufficiently sound mathematical basis.

Citations are relevant.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in refining our study. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your points and indicate the improvements made in the revised version.

1) Justification of the article selection process

Reviewer comment:
The selection of authors from 136 articles in Web of Science (79) and SCOPUS (57) should be justified in more detail. The article only mentions the SLR methodology and PRISMA but does not explain why the sample of 85 articles is relevant and reliable. It would be worthwhile for the authors to provide mathematical calculations to confirm this fact, rather than just provide a verbal description.

Response:
We acknowledge the need for a more rigorous justification of the article selection process. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the methodology section to include a more detailed explanation of the inclusion criteria, quality assessment, and relevance of the selected articles. Specifically, we have included:

• Quality assessment criteria: Each article was evaluated using a five-point scoring system based on Abstract clarity (+1 point), DOI availability (+1 point), Peer-review status (+1 point), Clear methodology (+1 point), and Clearly defined objectives (+1 point). Only studies scoring at least 4/5 were included.
• Mathematical validation: To ensure representativeness, we calculated the proportion of selected articles in relation to the total identified dataset. Out of 136 articles, 43 were removed as duplicates, leaving 93 unique articles. From these, 8 were excluded for being off-topic, resulting in 85 included studies. This selection corresponds to 62.5% of the non-duplicate articles, demonstrating a rigorous and representative sampling approach.
• PRISMA justification: We have now explicitly stated why the PRISMA framework was used to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of our systematic review process.

These additions strengthen the methodological robustness of our study.

2) Visualization of temporal evolution tables

Reviewer comment:
Tables 3 (The temporal evolution of the categories of motivations) and 9 (The temporal evolution of the categories of technology) should be presented in a graphical format for better interpretation of the data.

Response:
We fully agree that graphical representation would improve readability and data interpretation. In the revised manuscript, we have transformed Tables 3 and 9 into visual graphs that better illustrate temporal trends. Specifically:

• Table 3 (Temporal evolution of motivations) is now a heatmap, showing how different motivations (e.g., health, environmental concerns, ethical values) have evolved between 2015 and 2024.
• Table 9 (Temporal evolution of technology categories) is now a heatmap, visually demonstrating the increasing relevance of various technological innovations in sustainable food consumption over time.

These visualizations provide a clearer understanding of the progression and intensity of different factors over the analyzed period.

We have also included a brief discussion of these graphs in the results section to highlight key trends.

3) Substantiation of the claim regarding sustainability as a privileged option

Reviewer comment:
The authors conclude that “Until sustainability is as convenient and affordable as conventional food, it remains a privileged option rather than a universal norm.” This thesis should be substantiated more. Indicate on the basis of which studies this conclusion was made.

Response:
We recognize the need to support this statement with empirical evidence. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened this argument by referencing multiple studies that demonstrate how economic barriers and accessibility issues limit the widespread adoption of sustainable food consumption. Specifically, we have incorporated:

• Economic constraints: Studies indicate that price premiums for sustainable food products remain a key barrier (Yue et al., 2020; Haider et al., 2022). Research shows that lower-income households often prioritize affordability over sustainability due to financial limitations (Yang et al., 2024).
• Availability and infrastructure challenges: Several reports highlight the geographic disparities in access to sustainable food options, with rural and lower-income urban areas facing limited availability (Liu et al., 2021; Parekh & Svenfelt, 2022).
• Behavioral and policy implications: Research suggests that sustainable consumption remains concentrated among consumers with higher socioeconomic status and stronger environmental awareness (Bååth, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2021). The lack of large-scale policy incentives to reduce costs further exacerbates this divide.

We have now explicitly cited these sources in support of our conclusion and have expanded the discussion to clarify the economic and structural challenges preventing sustainability from becoming a universal norm.

Final Remarks

We deeply appreciate your positive evaluation of the manuscript’s clarity, relevance, and methodological rigor. Your suggestions have significantly enhanced the manuscript's methodological justification, data presentation, and argumentative strength.

All recommended revisions have been incorporated, and we believe these improvements make the study more robust and accessible.

We look forward to your feedback on the revised version.

Sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached Please

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and detailed feedback on our manuscript. Your suggestions have been extremely valuable in refining our work and enhancing its clarity, practical relevance, and overall contribution. Below, we address each of your recommendations and outline the specific revisions made:

1. Abstract Refinement

• We have revised the abstract to explicitly mention the key research gaps identified in the study. Instead of a broad reference to research gaps, we now specify that they relate to cross-cultural variations, long-term behavioral shifts, and digital interventions in sustainable consumption.
• This refinement ensures that the study’s contribution is clearly emphasized upfront.

2. Theoretical Background

• In response to your suggestion, we have added a real-world example illustrating the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in sustainable consumption.
• Specifically, we included the case of Denmark, where studies have shown that positive attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and social norms strongly influence consumers' adoption of plant-based food alternatives. This example strengthens the theoretical framework by demonstrating the practical application of TPB in consumer decision-making.

3. Drivers of Sustainable Food Consumption

• To enhance the practical relevance of our findings, we have included two case examples demonstrating how sustainability drivers influence consumer behavior:
  • Germany: The impact of strong eco-labeling regulations on increasing consumer trust in organic food purchases.
  • China: The role of food safety concerns as a primary motivation for sustainable food choices.
• These examples add real-world context to the motivations outlined in our study.

4. Barriers to Sustainable Consumption

• We have streamlined the discussion on economic constraints and price sensitivity to remove redundancy while maintaining clarity.
• Additionally, we have expanded the section to briefly discuss psychological barriers such as cognitive dissonance and consumer inertia, as suggested.
  • Example added: Consumers may recognize the environmental benefits of sustainable food but struggle to change their habits due to deeply ingrained consumption patterns and the perceived inconvenience of sustainable choices.
• This addition provides a more nuanced understanding of behavioral challenges in sustainable consumption.

5. Technologies in Sustainable Consumption

• We agree that discussing potential challenges in implementing emerging technologies would provide a more balanced view.
• We have added a section mentioning challenges such as digital literacy, cost barriers, and interoperability issues in blockchain solutions.
  • Example added: While blockchain enhances transparency in food supply chains, high operational costs and integration difficulties limit its large-scale adoption.
• This addition ensures that the discussion acknowledges both the benefits and limitations of technological advancements.

6. Corporate Initiatives and Policy Implications

• To reinforce the practical contribution of the study, we have incorporated a successful policy example:
  • The EU’s Green Deal and Farm-to-Fork strategy, which has incentivized businesses to invest in sustainable food practices, leading to measurable impacts on supply chains and consumer behavior.
• This strengthens the discussion by illustrating how policy frameworks influence corporate sustainability efforts.

7. References and Formatting

• We have carefully reviewed and standardized the formatting of all references to ensure compliance with the journal’s guidelines.
• Any inconsistencies have been corrected, and missing references have been cross-checked and added where necessary.

Conclusion

We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. By integrating your suggestions, we believe the study now provides a stronger, more structured, and practically relevant analysis of sustainable food consumption.

Thank you once again for your valuable input. We welcome any further feedback to enhance the manuscript.

Best regards,

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors followed all the corrections and suggestions proposed by the reviewer.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the revisions. Thank you for your valuable feedback and for accepting the changes!