Scoping review summarizes consumer behavior towards plant-based milk alternatives, highlighting implications for market strategies.
The consumption of plant-based milk alternatives (PBM) has increased rapidly in recent years due to growing concerns about sustainability, health, and animal welfare. This study summarizes international research on consumer behavior related to PBM products based on large-sample questionnaire surveys and openly accessible sources. A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley. Relevant articles were identified through the Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Dimensions databases. After a two-stage screening process, only Open Access journal articles published between 2018 and 2024 were included, covering studies conducted across Europe, North America, the Middle East, the Far East, and Australia. Eligible studies used questionnaire-based methods, involved at least 200 respondents, and focused on consumer behavior toward plant-based milk alternatives. The selected studies were analyzed using the “when–where–what” framework, considering research periods, geographical locations, and investigated topics. Findings were synthesized in a summary table and supported by a graphical model illustrating key consumer behavior dimensions. Results show that taste, health consciousness, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare are the main drivers of PBM consumption across different countries and cultures. However, price sensitivity, nutritional concerns, and strong attachment to conventional dairy products remain significant barriers to wider adoption. These findings can support the identification of target consumer groups and the market positioning of PBM products, while also providing a foundation for future consumer behavior research. By establishing the scope, volume and comparability of the existing quantitative evidence base, this scoping review also assesses whether the literature is sufficiently mature to support a subsequent systematic review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berencsi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: