Environmental, Health or Social Impacts? Investigating Ethical Food Consumption Behavior in the Case of Palm Oil-Free Foods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I feel the finding of this research is interesting because many people think that consumers avoid palm-oil for other reasons while here it turns out that they do it for environmental impact. Having said that, the work needs to be tightened up quite a bit.
I feel the use of the theory of planned behavior needs to be better justified. The theory is rather old and I would argue that you test past behavior more than current behavior (looking at your real question).
Another interesting question comes from the psychological literature. Especially with inflation and rising prices, will consumers stick to their environmental actions or would simply buy cheaper products? This can also partially explain the difference between intentions and real behavior. See and integrate where appropriate Hinsch, C., Tang, Y., & Lund, D. J. (2021). Compulsion and reactance: Why do some green consumers fail to follow through with planned environmental behaviors?.
Given environmental impact is the main issue, how can producers change this perception? This previous research offers ways to address this: Filieri, R., Javornik, A., Hang, H., & Niceta, A. (2021). Environmentally framed eWOM messages of different valence: The role of environmental concerns, moral norms, and product environmental impact.
The empirical approach is sound and overall, as mentioned, I feel the work deserves to be published once polished and improved along the lines above.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our responses to the reviewer’s comments are given below (the reviewer’s comments are in italics).
Reviewer’s comment: I feel the finding of this research is interesting because many people think that consumers avoid palm-oil for other reasons while here it turns out that they do it for environmental impact. Having said that, the work needs to be tightened up quite a bit.
Authors’ response: Thank you.
Reviewer’s comment: I feel the use of the theory of planned behavior needs to be better justified. The theory is rather old and I would argue that you test past behavior more than current behavior (looking at your real question).
Authors’ response: Thank you again. We chose the TPB because a lot of research on food consumption and purchasing behaviour still uses its methodology, adding different elements according to the research. Therefore, the following paragraph has been added to the article: “The Theory of Planned Behavior is a model that is still widely used today and has been applied in a wide range of research to understand food consumption behavior. [20-24]. The model, through its core elements, can provide a well-grounded answer to why consumers engage in the specific behaviors they do. Despite being a well-structured and widely used model in the consumer behavior research community, this model has not been used in previous research to understand the purchasing behavior of palm oil-free food products. In view of this, and the grounding of the model, a conceptual model for the current research was developed and is presented in the first figure.”
Reviewer’s comment: Another interesting question comes from the psychological literature. Especially with inflation and rising prices, will consumers stick to their environmental actions or would simply buy cheaper products? This can also partially explain the difference between intentions and real behavior. See and integrate where appropriate Hinsch, C., Tang, Y., & Lund, D. J. (2021). Compulsion and reactance: Why do some green consumers fail to follow through with planned environmental behaviors?.
Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this comment. We have not encountered this paradox and approach before, but you are clearly right, it could be behind the results of the model that has been developed. In response, we have added the following to the results chapter: “Another explanation for the model's results is that although there are environmentally conscious consumers, they do not implement environmentally conscious purchasing behavior for various reasons. This paradox is highlighted in the research by Hinsch, et al. [45]”
Reviewer’s comment: Given environmental impact is the main issue, how can producers change this perception? This previous research offers ways to address this: Filieri, R., Javornik, A., Hang, H., & Niceta, A. (2021). Environmentally framed eWOM messages of different valence: The role of environmental concerns, moral norms, and product environmental impact.
Authors’ response: Thank you also for this suggestion. We have looked at the recommended link and other related findings, which we have also included in the article: This can also be achieved through the use of third-party certification labels [46] through electronic word-of-mouth [47] or with the tools of green marketing [48].
Reviewer’s comment: The empirical approach is sound and overall, as mentioned, I feel the work deserves to be published once polished and improved along the lines above.
Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper doesn’t look ready for publishing. Its language style looks more like a report, not a specific paper.
Here are some comments.
[1] The Abstract is too long and should be shortened within one paragraph.
[2] Center figure titles and table titles.
[3] In line 143, the citation “[1,20-24,26]” in the title of Table 2 can be moved to the end of line 142.
[4] In line 153-154 “prescribed by the literature [28]”, “the literature” should be replaced by the author’s name.
[5] In line 161, the same comment as in [4].
[6] In line 177 “In the next section” should be “In this section”.
[7] In line 266, is “Limitation and future research” needed as a separate title?
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our responses to the reviewer’s comments are given below (the reviewer’s comments are in italics).
Reviewer’s comment: This paper doesn’t look ready for publishing. Its language style looks more like a report, not a specific paper. Here are some comments.
Authors’ response: We are sorry you felt that way. We have revised the article, improved the language and style, in the hope that it will be considered worthy of publication.
Reviewer’s comment: [1] The Abstract is too long and should be shortened within one paragraph.
Authors’ response: The abstract has been shortened.
Reviewer’s comment: [2] Center figure titles and table titles.
Authors’ response: The figures are formatted using the MDPI 4.1 - table caption and 5.1 - figure caption style.
Reviewer’s comment: [3] In line 143, the citation “[1,20-24,26]” in the title of Table 2 can be moved to the end of line 142.
Authors’ response: We have made the requested changes.
Reviewer’s comment: [4] In line 153-154 “prescribed by the literature [28]”, “the literature” should be replaced by the author’s name. [5] In line 161, the same comment as in [4].
Authors’ response: Thank you, these have also been corrected as requested.
Reviewer’s comment: [6] In line 177 “In the next section” should be “In this section”.
Authors’ response: Corrected.
Reviewer’s comment: [7] In line 266, is “Limitation and future research” needed as a separate title?
Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestion. At first, we thought that this part was important enough to be covered in a separate chapter. We have reconsidered our approach and decided to merge it with the discussion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulations for the interesting topic.
I have a few recommendations:
1. The abstract should be comprised and include the main objectives, the methodology and the findings of your research. Avoid the use of 1st person in your research and keep the paper objective. I recommend using third person such as, the present research, paper, study
2. After the introduction, add a Literature review section. Please make the distinction between Introduction which introduces the reader into the topic and the Literature review which presents other studies on the topic
3. Line 162, it is not clear what you want to say with "were began"
4. In table 7, I do not understand what these words are> egészség. környezet,
5. You should add a Conclusion section after Discussion to include Theoretical and Practical implications of your research and move Limitations and future research directions from Discussion to Conclusions
6. In the Literature review section you should add more recent references (2021-2022)
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our responses to the reviewer’s comments are given below (the reviewer’s comments are in italics).
Reviewer’s comment Congratulations for the interesting topic.
I have a few recommendations:
Authors’ response: Thank you.
Reviewer’s comment: 1. The abstract should be comprised and include the main objectives, the methodology and the findings of your research. Avoid the use of 1st person in your research and keep the paper objective. I recommend using third person such as, the present research, paper, study
Authors’ response: Thank you for your comments. The abstract has been shortened and the full article has been corrected as suggested.
Reviewer’s comment: 2. After the introduction, add a Literature review section. Please make the distinction between Introduction which introduces the reader into the topic and the Literature review which presents other studies on the topic
Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have considered it, but we feel that at the moment the literature review and the introduction section are strongly intertwined in the article. Since we have covered more than one topic in each, we think it would be confusing to split it completely, but for clarity we have expanded the chapter name and added several new sources and thoughts.
Reviewer’s comment: 3. Line 162, it is not clear what you want to say with "were began"
Authors’ response: We corrected this sentence with the following: The lowest value among the outer loadings was 0.626.
Reviewer’s comment: 4. In table 7, I do not understand what these words are> egészség. környezet,
Authors’ response: We corrected the table.
Reviewer’s comment: 5. You should add a Conclusion section after Discussion to include Theoretical and Practical implications of your research and move Limitations and future research directions from Discussion to Conclusions
Authors’ response: Following your and other reviewers' suggestions, we have made the limitation chapter part of the discussion chapter.
Reviewer’s comment: 6. In the Literature review section you should add more recent references (2021-2022)
Authors’ response: Following your suggestions, a number of new, recent sources have been added to the chapter.
