Why People Do Not Keep Their Promise: Understanding the Pro-Environmental Behavior in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main objective of this research develops an attitude model and frames the potential types of gaps from the perspective of attitude formation and transition surrounding the said environmental issues.
Does the title accurately summarise the content?
The title "Why people do not keep their promise: Understanding the pro-environmental behavior in China", summarises the content accurately. But the answer to why? for me, it's doesn't seem quite clear in the results or conclusions, maybe the authors can add some paragraph, with key findings, explain why Chinese people do not keep their promise.
Can the manuscript be better structured?
The manuscript is well structured.
Does the manuscript develop a logical argument?
Yes, the manuscript develops a logical argument. The authors present: a literature review, a detailed outline of research methods of study for the inspection of the gap situation in the Chinese environmental context, key findings, theoretical and managerial implications, and applications and recommendations of this study for future research.
Figures and Tables
Table 4 and 5, try to put the tables in one page or try to keep the header in both pages, also the letter size of the tables it's too big, compare with the letter size of the manuscript.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 are a little bit blurred.
ImplicationsTheoretical
If the research provides a novel understanding of when the environmental promise-implement gap occurs and how it functions in a theoretical manner, why the author not perform more statistical analysis using SPSS?
References:
Fix reference 18, it's in different sizes of letter.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of SUSTAINABILITY,
Thank you so much for your recommendation for revising and re-submitting our manuscript in SUSTAINABILITY.
We highly appreciate the encouragement and insightful comments that you have made on our manuscript. The comments and suggestions highlighted the issues that are most critical to the clarity of our research.
We have thought over each of the issues, searched additional literature for solutions, and performed significant rework on the manuscript based on our best efforts to meet your revision expectations. In the re-submitted manuscript, we have highlighted in yellow the revised and re-written paragraphs and newly added references.
We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our research. Through this round of revisions, we are able to extend our “dialogue” with you to further improve our research. We believe that we have made significant progress in resolving most, if not all, of the issues, and our research shall find its way to publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
We have fully formatted our manuscript according to SUSTAINABILITY’s requirements. In the re-submission, our point-by-point responses below have listed major points of how we have addressed your comments and concerns.
Once again, thank you very much for your recommendation for revising and re-submitting our manuscript in SUSTAINABILITY.
- The title "Why people do not keep their promise: Understanding the pro-environmental behavior in China", summarizes the content accurately. But the answer to why? for me, it's doesn't seem quite clear in the results or conclusions, maybe the authors can add some paragraph, with key findings, explain why Chinese people do not keep their promise.
OUR RESPONSE:
We are highly appreciative of insightful comments and suggestions that you have made on our manuscript. In the re-submitted manuscript, we have added a newly written paragraph to explain in details why Chinese people do not keep their promise in the section “4.1. Summary of key findings” that has been highlighted in yellow.
- Table 4 and 5, try to put the tables in one page or try to keep the header in both pages, also the letter size of the tables it's too big, compare with the letter size of the manuscript.
OUR RESPONSE:
Thanks your revision comments here. Following your revision recommendations, we have adjusted the layout of the sections.
- Figures 1, 2, and 3 are a little bit blurred.
OUR RESPONSE:
Thanks your revision comments here. Following your revision recommendations, we have significantly improved these figures.
- If the research provides a novel understanding of when the environmental promise-implement gap occurs and how it functions in a theoretical manner, why the author not perform more statistical analysis using SPSS?
OUR RESPONSE:
Thanks for your review comments. In response, we argue that our study mainly looks into the complex nature of the antecedent factors of the promise-implementation gap, rather than the want-can-do sequence that the extant literature has shown. Additionally, also explored in our study includes “I don’t really want to, or“I can’t but I have to”, or“I want but don’t want to now”, or“I really want but it is too hard to keep it up”, and so on. While it is rather challenging to design the questionnaires accordingly to captured the research phenomena, our study has adopted the previously validated measures (e.g., Dickerson et al., 1992, Senemeaud et al., 2014, and Gamma et al., 2020) to ensure the research reliability and validity. And, we argue that it may not be best suitable to perform factor analysis to show when all kinds of the environmental promise-implementation gaps occur and how it functions in a theoretical manner.
Furthermore, a mixed contexts is provided by China, where high regional imbalances of social and economic development exist, but also interesting initiatives to leap-frog some of the western - developed countries - efforts in the implementation of environmental systems and support of PEB behavior. We are intent on differential effective strategies to deal with promise-implementation gaps, without taking into account economic, social, demographic or other difference, because different types of such gap are not necessary connected with certain region or culture or personal characteristics. From the perspective of wicked problems, the types of gap are connected with the environmental value/attitude and/or insufficient trust and cooperation of all stakeholders. Thus, in the Chinese context of centralized democracies, government should first take active attitude towards environment, then take every efforts to involve all stakeholders in environmental protection, further establish cooperation and mutual trust among all stakeholders to promote PEBs.
- Fix reference 18, it's in different sizes of letter.
OUR RESPONSE:
Thanks your revision comments here. Following your revision recommendations, we have fixed it and highlighted in yellow in the re-submitted manuscript.
Finally, we highly appreciate the encouragement and insightful comments that you have made on our manuscript. The comments and suggestions highlighted the issues that are most critical to the clarity of our research.
We have thought over each of the issues, searched additional literature for solutions, and performed significant rework on the manuscript based on our best efforts to meet your revision expectations. In the re-submitted manuscript, we have highlighted in yellow the revised and re-written texts and newly added references.
We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our research. Through this round of revisions, we are able to extend our “dialogue” with you to further improve our research. We believe that we have made significant progress in resolving most, if not all, of the issues, and our research shall find its way to publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses an important topic. Societies and policymakers are being increasingly concern about environmental issues and the ways of supporting pro-environmental behaviors. China is not an exception. The authors of the paper are making a strong emphasis on understanding and examining the promise – implementation gap in the Chinese environmental context. The key aim of the paper is contributing a novel understanding of such a gap. This is an ambitious goal due to the complexity of the phenomenon and requires a thorough theoretical analysis and empirical research.
The paper has a clear structure with introduction, theoretical foundation of the problem, research methodology and discussion of the results obtained. At the same time some limitations could be drawn.
Firstly, there is some concern regarding the achievement of the key aim - contributing a novel understanding of the promise-implementation gap. As it could be understood from the summary of the findings some kind of the ‘proposed theoretical model’ has been tested. However, it is not clear what kind of theoretical model has been proposed. All the empirical research has been based on the model given in Figure 3. Attitudinal Transition Route[13]. However, that model has been proposed by other authors (Ryan & Deci). It is not clear from the text to what extend the authors of the paper have contributed to the development of that model. In general the whole chapter 2.2 lacks a clear theoretical discussion with the authors of the original model. In case the original model has been taken for further empirical research without any changes it had to be stated clearly. Of course, grounding the “novel approach” in the paper would be questionable in such case.
The Figure 2 is based on the original model proposed by Henry Minzberg more than 30 years ago and widely used in strategy literature. It would be more correct to mention the author of the original model even if there are two new elements included: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, the research in strategic management field does not support the idea of such divide between the origin of Intended and Emergent strategies. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation may be a source and reason for both Intended and Emergent strategies.
There is some doubt regarding the methodology of the research. The authors ‘surveyed data with cluster sampling from east to west regions in the country…’. However, as authors correctly state those imbalances in economic and many other aspects between east and west parts of China are very different. Calculating just an average data without taking into account economic, social, demographic and other differences is of little value. This is something like ‘measuring the average temperature in the hospital’. The data provided could be useful just as a result of exploring research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of SUSTAINABILITY,
Thank you so much for your recommendation for revising and re-submitting our manuscript in SUSTAINABILITY.
We highly appreciate the encouragement and insightful comments that you have made on our manuscript. The comments and suggestions highlighted the issues that are most critical to the clarity of our research.
We have thought over each of the issues, searched additional literature for solutions, and performed significant rework on the manuscript based on our best efforts to meet your revision expectations. In the re-submitted manuscript, we have highlighted in yellow the revised and re-written paragraphs and newly added references.
We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our research. Through this round of revisions, we are able to extend our “dialogue” with you to further improve our research. We believe that we have made significant progress in resolving most, if not all, of the issues, and our research shall find its way to publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
We have fully formatted our manuscript according to SUSTAINABILITY’s requirements. In the re-submission, our point-by-point responses below have listed major points of how we have addressed your comments and concerns.
Once again, thank you very much for your recommendation for revising and re-submitting our manuscript in SUSTAINABILITY.
- All the empirical research has been based on the model given in Figure 3. Attitudinal Transition Route[13]. However, that model has been proposed by other authors (Ryan & Deci). It is not clear from the text to what extend the authors of the paper have contributed to the development of that model. In general the whole chapter 2.2 lacks a clear theoretical discussion with the authors of the original model. In case the original model has been taken for further empirical research without any changes it had to be stated clearly. Of course, grounding the “novel approach” in the paper would be questionable in such case.
OUR RESPONSE:
We are highly appreciative of insightful comments and suggestions that you have made on our manuscript. In the re-submitted manuscript, we have added on newly written paragraph as follows to show that our model is different from the original one of Ryan & Deci:
When individuals ‘internalize’ extrinsic motivations through self-examination and integration, new regulations become congruence with their other values and needs. The individual development psychology has developed the so called self-determination theory [13]. However, the self-determination theory, focusing on internalization, cannot well address most social problems that involve various stakeholders with conflicting interests under specific circumstances – for instance, the plastic pollution. From the perspective of game theory instead, a mixed-motive-game requires that players both cooperate and compete. The mixed motivation comes into play when intrinsic and extrinsic motivations both function in a situation, which goes beyond integration and self-determination of individuals.
And we have made the following illustrations based on the theory of wicked problems below:
According to the work of two urban planning scientists, Rittel and Webber (1973), most environmental issues cannot be solved by planning per se, as the problems may be wicked as the involved or affected stakeholders can be so diverse[18]. The wicked problems theory shows that these stakeholders themselves are trouble makers and key producers of the problems. To address such problems, “collaborative advantage” is highly demanded[19], critically depending on cross-sector collaborations that would establish systemic goals and adaptive changes. Under these circumstances, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations may combine at the certain point, leading to the different types of strategy advantages, a process being proactive.
Upon our responses above, we argue that the attitudinal model we developed in our study is mainly based on three theories: the self-determination theory, the game theory, and the wicked-problem theory, which, we believe, can achieve a novel approach of our study. Additionally, we have added more illustrations in the re-submitted manuscript highlighted in yellow.
- The Figure 2 is based on the original model proposed by Henry Minzberg more than 30 years ago and widely used in strategy literature. It would be more correct to mention the author of the original model even if there are two new elements included: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, the research in strategic management field does not support the idea of such divide between the origin of Intended and Emergent strategies. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation may be a source and reason for both Intended and Emergent strategies.
Once again, thanks for insights here. After serious considerations, in the re-submitted manuscript, we have deleted figure 2 and related discourses. In Section 2.1, we have clarified two points: One is where our attitudinal model has been built upon (i.e., upon the three theories: the self-determination theory, the game theory and the wicked-problem theory); the other is on features of four attitudes are towards the environmental protection (including inactive, reactive, active and proactive). We figured that the involvement of strategic management may NOT facilitate the two topics, so we have deleted the related content.
3.There is some doubt regarding the methodology of the research. The authors ‘surveyed data with cluster sampling from east to west regions in the country…’. However, as authors correctly state those imbalances in economic and many other aspects between east and west parts of China are very different. Calculating just an average data without taking into account economic, social, demographic and other differences is of little value. This is something like ‘measuring the average temperature in the hospital’. The data provided could be useful just as a result of exploring research.
Thanks for your review comments. In response, we argue that our study mainly looks into the complex nature of the antecedent factors of the promise-implementation gap, rather than the want-can-do sequence that the extant literature has shown. Additionally, also explored in our study includes “I don’t really want to, or“I can’t but I have to”, or“I want but don’t want to now”, or“I really want but it is too hard to keep it up”, and so on. While it is rather challenging to design the questionnaires accordingly to captured the research phenomena, our study has adopted the previously validated measures (e.g., Dickerson et al., 1992, Senemeaud et al., 2014, and Gamma et al., 2020) to ensure the research reliability and validity. And, we argue that it may not be best suitable to perform factor analysis to show when all kinds of the environmental promise-implementation gaps occur and how it functions in a theoretical manner.
Furthermore, a mixed contexts is provided by China, where high regional imbalances of social and economic development exist, but also interesting initiatives to leap-frog some of the western - developed countries - efforts in the implementation of environmental systems and support of PEB behavior. We are intent on differential effective strategies to deal with promise-implementation gaps, without taking into account economic, social, demographic or other difference, because different types of such gap are not necessary connected with certain region or culture or personal characteristics. From the perspective of wicked problems, the types of gap are connected with the environmental value/attitude and/or insufficient trust and cooperation of all stakeholders. Thus, in the Chinese context of centralized democracies, government should first take active attitude towards environment, then take every efforts to involve all stakeholders in environmental protection, further establish cooperation and mutual trust among all stakeholders to promote PEBs.
In addition, we have re-phrased the term as “the promise-implementation gap” as you pointed out.
Finally, we highly appreciate the encouragement and insightful comments that you have made on our manuscript. The comments and suggestions highlighted the issues that are most critical to the clarity of our research.
We have thought over each of the issues, searched additional literature for solutions, and performed significant rework on the manuscript based on our best efforts to meet your revision expectations. In the re-submitted manuscript, we have highlighted in yellow the revised and re-written texts and newly added references.
We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our research. Through this round of revisions, we are able to extend our “dialogue” with you to further improve our research. We believe that we have made significant progress in resolving most, if not all, of the issues, and our research shall find its way to publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the manuscript have made a significant improvement of their previous text. Stronger argumentation regarding different statements could also be seen in the authors’ response to the reviewer’s comments. However, some issues still remain unclear or expect clarification.
Firstly, it is not clear who are the authors of the main model (Fig. 2) in the manuscript. In the previous version of the manuscript the authorship of that model has been addressed to Ryan and Deci (2000). In the revised version the authorship belongs to Van Tulder (2018). In both cases the statement ‘the research provides a novel understanding of when the environmental promise-implementation gap occurs and how it function in a theoretical manner’ sounds a bit too ambitious. Most likely the novel approach has been already proposed in the previous paper (Van Tulder, 2018 ) where such model had to be grounded. Maybe such model has just been applied to the specific China context and has proved its reliability?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of SUSTAINABILITY,
Thank you so much for your recommendation for revising and re-submitting our manuscript in SUSTAINABILITY.
We highly appreciate the encouragement and insightful comments that you have made on our manuscript. The comments and suggestions highlighted the issues that are most critical to the clarity of our research.
- However, some issues still remain unclear or expect clarification. Firstly, it is not clear who are the authors of the main model (Fig. 2) in the manuscript. In the previous version of the manuscript the authorship of that model has been addressed to Ryan and Deci (2000). In the revised version the authorship belongs to Van Tulder (2018).
Our response:
The author of the main model (Fig. 2) is Rob van Tulder (2018), who is one of the researchers and co-authors of this project. Thanks for the reversion suggestions, we have corrected this mistake in the main text and References of the re-submitted manuscript.
- In both cases the statement ‘the research provides a novel understanding of when the environmental promise-implementation gap occurs and how it function in a theoretical manner’ sounds a bit too ambitious. Most likely the novel approach has been already proposed in the previous paper (Van Tulder, 2018 ) where such model had to be grounded. Maybe such model has just been applied to the specific China context and has proved its reliability?
Our response:
The framework of our research is mainly adopted from the work of Rob van Tulder (2018), Getting all the motives right: Driving international corporate responsibility (ICR) to the next level. He is one of the researchers and co-authors of this project. Further on the basis, as illustrated in greater detail in the proposed behavioral gaps, our research has made many theoretical differences and adjustments from the seminal work of Rob van Tulder (2018). For instance, we argued that the antecedent of reactive gap is the awareness gap or the lack of environmental value, while it is described as the challenges of the “extrinsic incentives bias”, doom scenarios, the role of negative nudges and moral self-licensing effect in the book. We pointed out the root of these challenges in the study. To completely and accurately express our ideas, we have re-phrased “provides a novel understanding” to “extends our understanding” as shown in the highlighted yellow text on page 15.
