‘I Don’t Want to Save the World When Drinking Wine’: How Consumers Negotiate Sustainability in Everyday Wine Consumption‘

1. Introduction

Research on sustainable consumption has grown substantially over the past two decades, with particular attention to consumers’ environmental attitudes, ethical concerns, and willingness to pay for sustainable products. However, a persistent discrepancy between positive sustainability attitudes and actual consumption practices has been widely documented, commonly referred to as the attitude–behavior gap [1]. While consumers frequently express concern for environmental and social issues, these concerns often fail to translate into consistent purchasing behavior, particularly in everyday consumption contexts.

Several scholars have argued that this gap cannot be adequately explained through linear models of rational decision-making alone. Ethical consumption is frequently shaped by situational justifications and moral licensing processes, allowing consumers to maintain a positive moral self-concept while selectively suspending ethical commitments [2]. From this perspective, sustainability is not rejected but conditionally applied, depending on context, product category, and perceived moral relevance.

Practice-oriented approaches further challenge attitudinal explanations of sustainable consumption. Consumption practices are embedded in routines, social meanings, and material contexts rather than driven by stable preferences or values [3,4]. Ethical considerations are negotiated within everyday practices and compete with other meanings such as pleasure, convenience, and social norms, resulting in context-dependent compromises rather than principled consistency [5].

Wine consumption represents a particularly revealing case for examining these dynamics. Wine occupies a hybrid position between everyday consumption and symbolic indulgence, combining sensory pleasure, cultural meaning, and social distinction. Prior research on sustainable wine consumption has predominantly focused on determinants such as price, taste, labels, and socio-demographic factors, often relying on quantitative designs. While these studies provide valuable insights into what influences purchase decisions, they tend to conceptualize sustainability as an objective product attribute rather than as a socially interpreted and negotiated concept.

Taste plays a central role in this context. Research on food choice demonstrates that sensory pleasure can function as a moral boundary, limiting the extent to which ethical considerations are allowed to influence consumption [6]. While pleasure and ethics may coexist, they often compete in practice [7]. These tensions are particularly pronounced in wine consumption, where taste is often framed as non-negotiable and self-evident.

In addition, sustainability-related cues such as regional origin and certification labels introduce further layers of interpretation. While labels are intended to reduce information asymmetry and build trust, empirical research shows that their effectiveness depends strongly on perceived credibility and governance structures [8,9]. Consumers do not automatically trust assurance schemes, instead they rely on personal experience, cultural familiarity, and relational trust [10]. Regionality, in particular, has been shown to function as a powerful heuristic that symbolically substitutes for more complex sustainability evaluations.

Austria provides a relevant empirical context for exploring these processes. High environmental awareness, strong regional identities, and a well-established wine culture coexist with diverse sustainability concepts and certification schemes [11]. Against this backdrop, sustainability is not simply assessed but actively interpreted, negotiated, and sometimes symbolically resolved.

To address these gaps, this study adopts a qualitative, exploratory approach to examine how Austrian wine consumers construct and negotiate the meaning of sustainability in everyday wine consumption contexts. Rather than measuring attitudes or preferences, the study focuses on meaning-making processes, moral justifications, and situational decision-making. By doing so, it contributes to sustainable consumption research by conceptualizing sustainability as a situated and negotiated practice rather than a stable consumer attribute. By examining everyday wine consumption, the study explicitly identifies key challenges for sustainable consumption, including moral compartmentalization, the dominance of taste, and distrust toward sustainability claims. At the same time, it reveals situational enablers of eco-friendly living, including trusted relationships, experiential contexts, and socially embedded meaning-making.

Accordingly, the study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: How do wine consumers construct and negotiate the meaning of sustainability in everyday wine consumption contexts?RQ2: How do consumers justify the selective relevance of sustainability in wine consumption in relation to pleasure, taste, and moral responsibility?RQ3: What symbolic cues (e.g., taste, regionality, certifications) shape trust and decision-making regarding sustainable wine?RQ4: How is willingness to pay for sustainable wine situationally negotiated across different consumption contexts?

2. Methodology

A qualitative research approach was used to collect a rich dataset from a relatively small sample of individuals. The goal was to obtain an in-depth insight into participants’ experiences and personal opinions with respect to sustainable wine consumption [12]. Focus groups were chosen to understand individual behavior and feeling. A strong emphasis was placed on the interaction between participants, within the group discussion, to contrast the many different attitudes. This technique leads to debates among participants and gives insights into society as a whole [12].

The sampling methods included a combination of judgmental and snowball sample technique. The participants were selected based on the judgement of the research team. The selection criteria included age, gender, demographics, wine knowledge and consumption patterns. The focus groups were composed of wine consumers with different personalities and characteristics to gain a deeper understanding of motivations and attitudes. A total of five focus groups were completed with the help of a semi-structured guideline, with a duration between one and two and a half hours, depending on the number of participants, the content, and the group dynamics.

These consisted of both wine connoisseurs and wine amateurs and were composed as follows:

• 2 focus groups of 4 people each, Mixed gender, age +/- 30 years
• 2 focus groups of 5-7 people each, Mixed gender, different age groups
• 1 focus group with 7 people, Mixed gender, age 40/50+

The focus group discussions were conducted on several dates in a private environment. These conversations were recorded with both sound and image to ensure full documentation and for any possible reproduction at a later stage. After the first focus group discussion was held, some key themes emerged, that led to minor adaptations for the following rounds. The discussions were structured into five parts. Section one included an introduction and a quote to stimulate participants’ short presentation of themselves, including their relationship to wine. This was followed by a small wine tasting, section two, to loosen the atmosphere, remove initial conversation barriers, and stimulate discussion. Two white wines were primarily tasted at the start, both of which were sustainably certified by Sustainable Austria. To challenge participants’ taste, the same wine was poured into two different glasses, pretending to be different types of wine. A key question to start the discussion with was “Which one do you think is the sustainable wine and can you taste it?”

Section three consequently resulted in a discussion about the different concepts of sustainable, organic, biodynamic, and conventional wine. In addition, we wanted to know about consumers’ knowledge, expectations, and opinions about them. To maintain interest, additional bottles of wine with different certificates were shown to the participants. This also allowed the researchers to understand their awareness of logos and certifications. After a long exchange of opinions, section four, the correct definitions of concepts and certificates were shared, and participants were asked about their willingness to pay a premium for these wines, given their newly gained knowledge.

The collected data was transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis with the help of the program MAXQDA2020. The steps of the analysis included transcribing the video material, looking for emerging themes and existing relationships, coding, and detecting underlying attitudes and values. As preparation for data analysis, both inductive and deductive coding approaches were adopted [13]. All focus group discussions were held and transcribed in German, with quotes having been translated to English as close to the original as possible.

3. Results

3.1. Sustainability as a Conditional Moral Concern

Across all focus groups, sustainability was not rejected as a value but rather morally compartmentalized. Participants consistently framed wine as a special category that is exempt from everyday ethical responsibility. While sustainability was described as important in principle, it was simultaneously positioned as less urgent or even unnecessary in the context of wine consumption. This conditionality reflects not a lack of ethical awareness, but an active process of moral negotiation in which responsibility is selectively allocated across product categories.

Participants repeatedly contrasted wine with other foods such as meat, eggs, or vegetables, where sustainability and ethical production were framed as more obligatory. Wine, by contrast, was associated with pleasure, leisure, and relaxation—contexts in which moral demands were temporarily suspended. One participant explicitly articulated this prioritization, noting that ethical consideration is a limited moral resource:

“The difference between sustainable and non-sustainable wine is much smaller than with other products. Given the amount of information available, I prefer to focus on sustainability with other products rather than wine.” (FG3_P2)

This framing, positions wine as a morally permissible indulgence, where ethical scrutiny is perceived as intrusive or disproportionate. Sustainability thus becomes optional rather than obligatory, allowing consumers to maintain a positive moral self-image without altering their wine consumption practices.

At the same time, this conditional moral logic is marked by internal tensions. Participants strongly condemned unethical practices such as child labor in global industries, yet relativized similar concerns in the context of Austrian wine production by invoking proximity and assumed national standards:

“Let’s reverse the example. Somewhere in Bangladesh, a 13-year-old is sewing shoes in a factory. Those are simply different standards.” (FG2_P2 / FG2_P3)

Such statements illustrate how moral boundaries are actively drawn between “distant” and “proximate” production contexts. Sustainability is thus not applied as a universal principle but negotiated situationally, shaped by cultural proximity and the symbolic framing of wine as a pleasure-oriented product.

3.2. Taste as the Ultimate Legitimizing Authority

Taste emerged as the hegemonic evaluative principle governing wine consumption, consistently overriding ethical, environmental, and informational considerations. Sensory preference was treated as self-evident and non-negotiable, providing a powerful justification for disregarding sustainability without moral discomfort.

Participants frequently emphasized that sustainability cannot be perceived sensorially and therefore cannot serve as a primary evaluative standard:

“It’s difficult to taste sustainability in a wine.” (FG3_P4)

The tasting experiment further revealed the socially constructed nature of taste, while simultaneously demonstrating its experienced objectivity. Participants confidently differentiated between two wines that were in fact identical, assigning distinct sensory qualities and sustainability-related meanings based on visual cues and label design. Even after the deception was revealed, taste judgments persisted:

“Even if it turns out to be the same wine, I still think this one tastes better.” (FG1_P3)

Taste thus functioned not merely as a sensory criterion but as a legitimizing discourse that stabilized consumption choices and neutralized ethical tension.

3.3. Regionality as a Symbolic Substitute for Sustainability

Regional origin functioned as a powerful symbolic proxy for sustainability, substantially reducing the perceived need for further ethical evaluation. Austrian wine was frequently described as morally “pre-approved,” based on assumptions about national standards and trust in local production systems:

“When it comes to Austrian wine, I don’t think it’s necessary to question sustainability—it’s already given.” (FG3_P2)

Participants acknowledged limited knowledge about sustainability standards in wine but normalized this gap as unproblematic:

“Wine probably isn’t something you’re taught about in terms of sustainability like other products.” (FG4_P5)

Regionality thus substitutes analytical assessment with cultural trust, transforming sustainability into a spatially embedded assumption rather than an evaluative criterion.

3.4. Trust Over Transparency: Skepticism Toward Certifications

Rather than enhancing clarity, sustainability certifications were often seen as vague and potentially misleading. Participants expressed skepticism toward the term “sustainability,” which was perceived as strategically used for marketing purposes:

“Sustainability isn’t a legally protected term. You can put it on anything, even if it’s not true.” (FG2_P3)

In contrast, EU organic certification was evaluated more positively due to clearer governance:

“If something says ‘sustainable’ but not ‘organic’, I immediately wonder why it isn’t organic.” (FG3_P1)

Trust was thus grounded in perceived enforceability and personal relationships rather than informational transparency.

3.5. Paying for Sustainability as a Contextual Negotiation

Willingness to pay for sustainable wine emerged as situational and context-dependent. Price premiums were evaluated differently depending on occasion and social setting:

“It really depends on the occasion. For something special, you’re more willing to pay extra.” (FG4_P6)

Sustainability premiums required narrative justification:

“Understanding how it’s made ultimately makes the price feel justified.” (FG3_P5)

Paying for sustainability therefore constitutes a negotiated practice embedded in social meaning rather than abstract ethical commitment.

4. Discussion

This study provides qualitative insight into how sustainability is interpreted, negotiated, and selectively applied in everyday wine consumption. Rather than treating sustainability as a stable attitude or a set of measurable preferences, the findings highlight sustainability as a situational, symbolic, and morally negotiated practice.

4.1. Moral Licensing and Conditional Sustainability

The findings strongly support and extend existing work on moral licensing in ethical consumption. Consistent with prior research, participants did not reject sustainability as a value but constructed wine as a morally permissible exception [2]. Sustainability emerged as a finite moral resource that is selectively allocated across product categories, confirming critiques of rational choice models in sustainable consumption [1].

By situating sustainability within everyday moral reasoning, the findings align with practice-based perspectives that emphasize contextual negotiation over attitudinal consistency [3,5]. Wine consumption, associated with pleasure and relaxation, becomes a space where moral responsibility is temporarily suspended without threatening consumers’ ethical self-understanding.

4.2. Taste as Moral Boundary and Epistemic Authority

Taste functioned as a powerful moral and epistemic boundary, reinforcing earlier work on the moralization of food choices [6]. By framing taste as non-negotiable and self-evident, participants legitimized the prioritization of pleasure over sustainability. This finding resonates with arguments that hedonistic values can coexist with ethical concerns but often constrain their practical relevance [7].

Importantly, the tasting experiment demonstrates how socially constructed taste judgments are experienced as authentic and resistant to correction. This contributes to sustainable consumption research by showing how sensory experience stabilizes consumption practices and shields them from ethical challenge.

4.3. Symbolic Substitution through Regionality

Regionality operated as a mechanism of symbolic substitution, confirming earlier insights into heuristic-based ethical judgments. Rather than evaluating sustainability analytically, participants relied on cultural proximity and national trust as moral shortcuts. This supports the argument that trust in food systems is relational and culturally embedded, rather than solely information-driven [10].

By redefining sustainability spatially rather than environmentally, regionality transforms ethical evaluation into an identity-based reassurance. This finding advances existing research by demonstrating how symbolic cues can replace substantive sustainability assessment in everyday consumption.

4.4. Trust, Governance, and the Limits of Transparency

The skepticism toward sustainability certifications highlights the limits of transparency-oriented approaches. While labels are designed to enhance trust, their effectiveness depends on perceived governance and enforceability [8]. The preference for EU-Bio over vague sustainability claims illustrates selective trust in institutional arrangements, supporting calls for stronger regulatory clarity.

Consistent with previous research, personal relationships and experiential knowledge outweighed abstract certification schemes, suggesting that trust is produced socially rather than informationally [10].

4.5. Situated Willingness to Pay

Finally, willingness to pay emerged as situational and socially embedded rather than attitudinal, reinforcing practice-based theories of consumption [4]. Sustainability premiums required narrative justification and contextual alignment, challenging economic models that assume stable ethical preferences.

Taken together, the findings underscore the importance of understanding sustainable consumption as a negotiated practice shaped by moral boundaries, symbolic cues, and social context rather than as a function of individual attitudes alone.

5. Limitations and Implications

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the qualitative and exploratory design does not aim for statistical generalizability. Instead, the focus lies on analytical depth and contextual understanding. While the findings provide rich insights into meaning-making processes, they should be understood as illustrative rather than representative.

Second, the study is situated within the Austrian wine context, which is characterized by strong regional identities, relatively high environmental awareness, and specific production structures. These contextual features may shape how sustainability is interpreted and negotiated. Consequently, the findings may not be directly transferable to countries with different cultural, regulatory, or market conditions.

Third, focus group discussions involve social interaction and collective sense-making, which may influence how participants articulate their views. While this interaction is a strength for exploring shared meanings and moral negotiations, it may also amplify dominant narratives or socially acceptable positions. Individual interviews might reveal additional nuances, particularly regarding personal ethical tensions.

Fourth, the sample size is limited and may not represent the larger context of the Austrian consumer or the global consumer. The qualitative data collection process requires a smaller sample size. However, this sample has interesting results and implications.

Finally, although the tasting experiment provided valuable insights into the role of taste and symbolic cues, the artificial setting cannot fully replicate real-life purchasing situations. Future research could complement these findings with ethnographic or longitudinal approaches that capture sustainability negotiations across different consumption moments.

Despite these limitations, the study offers several important implications for sustainable consumption research and practice. From a theoretical perspective, the findings underscore the need to move beyond linear attitude–behavior models and to conceptualize sustainability as a situated and negotiated practice. Ethical consumption cannot be fully understood without accounting for moral boundaries, symbolic heuristics, and the social contexts in which decisions are embedded. Rather than relying primarily on additional labels or information provision, the findings suggest that practical sustainability strategies should focus on communicative and relational interventions, such as experiential engagement, storytelling, and trust-building relationships that resonate with everyday consumption practices.

For future research, the study highlights the value of qualitative and practice-oriented approaches in sustainability research. Comparative studies across countries or product categories could further illuminate how cultural context shapes moral negotiation processes. In addition, combining qualitative insights with experimental or longitudinal designs may deepen understanding of how sustainability meanings evolve over time.

From a practical perspective, the findings suggest that sustainability communication strategies should engage more strongly with everyday meaning-making rather than relying solely on informational labels. Taste, pleasure, and trust emerge as central entry points for sustainability narratives. For the wine sector, this implies that sustainability claims are more likely to resonate when embedded in experiential contexts, such as winery visits, storytelling, and personal relationships, rather than abstract certification schemes alone.

Moreover, the situational nature of willingness to pay indicates that sustainability premiums cannot be assumed uniformly across contexts. Producers and policymakers should recognize that ethical value is negotiated differently depending on occasion, social setting, and perceived authenticity. Strengthening governance clarity and credibility, particularly around sustainability terminology, may help reduce skepticism and support more meaningful engagement with sustainable consumption practices.