Online experiment reveals that explicit sustainability cues significantly enhance perceived coffee quality.
Purpose This study aims to analyse the direct effects of packaging cues – both implicit and explicit – on perceived quality of coffee. Additionally, we explore the interaction effects between these packaging cues. The implicit packaging cue was defined as the type of packing material used. Furthermore, we analysed two explicit cues, the tag on the label and the type of product announced. Design/methodology/approach An online experiment was conducted with 740 participants from Brazil. The study employed a 2 (implicit cue: kraft paper packaging vs. plastic packaging) × 2 (explicit cue: sustainability tag vs. no sustainability tag) × 2 (explicit cue and conventional product vs. sustainable product) design to investigate perceived coffee quality. The data were analysed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). Findings The study revealed that both explicit cues, such as the sustainability tag and the type of product announced, positively influence the perceived quality of coffee. This indicates that sustainable coffee and those with packaging that explicitly communicate their sustainability are viewed as higher quality. A similar effect was observed among respondents who had a high coffee consumption when implicit cues (i.e. kraft paper packing) were present. Originality/value This research improves our understanding of explicit and implicit cues in coffee packaging by examining the use of sustainable packaging, environmental tags, and eco-labels. This area has been underexplored, especially in developing countries like Brazil. The findings offer valuable insights for emerging markets. Furthermore, they provide companies with guidance on how to reevaluate their sustainable communication strategies. By clearly showcasing their sustainability efforts, such as placing eco-friendly tags in prominent and visible positions on their packaging, companies can enhance the perceived quality of their coffee.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramos et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: