Does Sustainable Consumption Behaviour Influence Luxury Services Purchase Intention?

REVIEWER’S COMMENT AND AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

The manuscript is too long, and includes many redundant parts. The literature review part should be summarized. Please summarize section 2.1.1.-2.1.4. They are not much relevant to the core study. Please also move section 3.1 to section 2.

Thank you for this pertinent comment. We completely agree with it. So, we have revised all manuscript.

For the conceptual framework, mot theories indicate that the green behavior is influenced by behavioral intention. Those are such as TPB and VBN theory. I am curious why this study assumed that sustainable behaviors influence the intention. Please clearly explain. 

Thanks for your comment. We integrate as much as possible the knowledge of the previous theories regarding the luxury domain. So, we aimed to extend sustainable behavior services considered in a more general level, i.e., expand sustainable behavior of goods, and achieve the intentions in the luxury services context. Our purpose was to start from the behavior to reach the intention in another sector (luxury services). One of the references used was "Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior to understand the effects of barriers to sustainable fashion consumption", which applies the Theory of Planned Behavior. 

So, our intention is to consider sustainable behaviors, as we wanted to analyze the sustainable behaviors of people who already have sustainable practices. That is, an extension of the sustainable behavior of goods, but applied also to services, namely luxury services such as hospitality.

No need to explain meaning of some statistic values because they are generally known by scholars. For instance, page 29, we all know what VIF is. It is no need to explain its meaning. Please just indicate the result and a brief interpretation. Otherwise, the manuscript would be too long.

Thank you very much for this indication. We totally agree that there was no need to explain some statistic values because they are generally known by scholars. So, in this version of the manuscript we have changed it.

Please also present types of questions used for measuring each variable. Based on my opinion, some independent variables are very similar. This is why correlation of some variables are too high. Those are such as the correlation between self-expression and status-gratification, and the correlation between self-expression and hedonism. 

Thank you very much for this remark. In this new version we share the document with questionnaire structure, constructs, definitions and results.  

For the result of SEM, please indicate values of statistic indexes presenting the model fit. Those are such as these indexes: X2 test, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit indexes (GFIs), chi square/degree of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) and incremental fit index (IFI). 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to clarify. In this study, wee have used the software in partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) instead of the software AMOS. In the AMOS software, the criteria are those indicated by the reviewer.

REVIEWER’S COMMENT AND AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

I think the authors need to reconfirm the relationship between sustainability and luxury. Traditionally they are opposites. What aspects of luxury can be made sustainable must be clarified. 

Thank you for this valuable comment and the opportunity to clarify this observation.

Previously, these concepts, i.e., sustainability and luxury were opposites. Nevertheless, they are nowadays very closed because people are starting to choose sustainable luxury services over just luxury services. So individuals are giving greater importance to sustainability in the luxury service decision process.  

In the full text, like "Younger generations, as the Millennial Generation, Are more faithful to sustainability and give more attention to the ethical standards of Brands." Such sentences need documentary evidence, please check the full text.

Thank you for the input. We have revised the manuscript according to your comment.

"Hedonism can promote sustainable consumption" seems odd, and the authors fail to demonstrate a link between the two. Much of this is arbitrary. 

Thank you for your comment. Considering the authors’ references in this investigation that hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure this leads consumers to feel good and pleased to attending/purchasing green/sustainable services.

There is a considerable amount of literature referenced in the reference of questionnaire items, such as hedonism. I don't know if this is necessary, the specific reference process and the final questionnaire text used need to be provided and explained by the author.

Thank you very much for your remark. In this new version, we added  the survey administrated, grouped by construct and items.

In the data analysis section, I suggest authors to compress the text and tables.

Thank you very much for the suggestion. In the new version we have modified the manuscript considering the comments provided.

REVIEWER’S COMMENT AND AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

First of all, I am not satisfied with the author's answers to questions 1 and 3. I don't see any changes in the article.

Question 1 - I think the authors need to reconfirm the relationship between sustainability and luxury. Traditionally they are opposites. What aspects of luxury can be made sustainable must be clarified. 

Thank you very much for raising this issue. Regarding question 1, in the new version we clearly demonstrate the relationship between sustainability and luxury, supported by the authors. This relationship is due to the fact that new luxury consumers have strong social and environmental values and are engaged in more sustainable consumption patterns. In addition, there is a combination between the ethical criteria and the luxury consumption criteria.

Question 3 -"Hedonism can promote sustainable consumption" seems odd, and the authors fail to demonstrate a link between the two. Much of this is arbitrary. 

Thank you very much for your fruitful comment. In this new version we share a clear paradox between both, the consumer may see sustainability as utilitarian and luxury as hedonic, however, the author suggests that hedonism is part of sustainable luxury, and that sustainability is a great added value.

Question 4 has not been modified in any way. I don't see any changes to Table 1.

Question 4 - There is a considerable amount of literature referenced in the reference of questionnaire items, such as hedonism. I don't know if this is necessary, the specific reference process and the final questionnaire text used need to be provided and explained by the author.

Thank you very much for your remark. In the previous submission, we shared our questionnaire. In table 1 we compressed as possible since our constructs were adapted by the authors stated.