Green Intentions: Field Research and Data-Driven Analysis of Customers’ Purchasing Patterns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article, despite the timeliness and interest of the subject matter, as well as the ambitiousness of its combined methodology, in my humble opinion I believe that it does not meet sufficient quality and rigor to publish it at least in its present terms.

Firstly, with regard to the literature review, despite citing scientific works of some weight, it ignores an important literature on TPB and the intention-behavior gap and assumes that the pro-environmental attitude declared by consumers in a survey can be translated or observed as purchase behaviour without entering into other considerations about personal or other situational conditioning factors such as the availability of choice, the information offered on the label or packaging, price difference, etc.

Secondly, methodologically, there are shortcomings that are difficult to overlook, such as the small sample and doubtful representativeness of the survey (spread exclusively among university students and staff), which also asks in very general terms about "environmental impact" and somewhat more specifically about carbon footprint, but not specifically about recyclable packaging, or pro-environmental hair care shopping which is the subject of the subsequent analysis with panel data.

With respect to the analysis of purchase data, more clarification or detail would be needed to conclude that consumers do not bring their green purchasing intentions to the store. For example, it does not specify how clearly it is identified as a green product on the packaging and on the shelf, if applicable (seal, point-of-sale advertising, mention of "new packaging" or "recyclable bottle"). Nor is it clear whether both types of packaging coexist in the same period in the store, or whether there is any price difference between them, so that there is a real choice between the two alternatives. In this sense, the design of an experiment could be more representative and explain better than the survey how the consumer understands and approaches the specific choice in the case of Tresemmé shampoos.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article suggests a current and attractive topic for the academy. The effort made is evident, but it requires some adjustments for better understanding and quality.

The study on this topic is fascinating. The structure is clear and logical, and challenging. The research is timely and worthwhile.

Authors should follow the style of a structured abstract based on the IMRAD structure of a paper. The abstract should briefly state the purpose of the research, the principal results, and significant conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

I hope you find the following observations helpful:

Materials and methods: I found this section very important for the paper's readability. Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described using a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit.

The references, although varied, need up-to-date. It says a lot.

Authors should consider more previous works (e.g., theoretical, conceptual, and empirical reviews) published in the literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies. I suggest adding to the references list the following papers: 

·         Lisnawati, H., Sinaga A. Data Mining with Associated Methods to Predict Consumer Purchasing Patterns. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), Vol.12, No.5, pp. 16-28, 2020.DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2020.05.02

·         Fedushko, S.; Ustyianovych, T. E-Commerce Customers Behavior Research Using Cohort Analysis: A Case Study of COVID-19. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010012

I strongly recommend adding these works to the list of references.

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies.

The diagrammatic presentation of the study research will be the most substantial section of this work. I suggest adding a visual presentation of obtained outcomes in section Results.

Structure: Articles should be reformatted according to a standard structure, which is set out in the instructions for the authors of the Journal (sections are Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussions, and Conclusion). See template.

I also suggest a grammar and spelling review. 

 

The conclusion is thorough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations on the study presented, which proves to be relevant and timely. This article is well done, and the suggestions that I leave below are aimed at a general improvement of it, so that it can be accepted for publication:

 

In the abstract, please add some information about

- Results: summarize the articles main findings;

- Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

Citations do not appear in numerical order. For example, the first citation of the article is numbered with nr. 4. Please see the newspaper guidelines

In the literature review, there are no contradictory or opposing theories to the line of thought that the authors defend in their study. This leads to a more difficult perception of the problem under study. I suggest that the authors invest more in this point, in order to make their study more relevant.

The methodology followed is sufficiently detailed and adequate to the type of study.

The results are correctly interpreted and the conclusions are in line with the results.

Conclusions are scarce. Authors should put the contributions of this article to theory and practice, as this will make this article more relevant to the reader.

Good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to sincerely thank the authors for their efforts to improve the paper.

The paper still has serious limitations due to the size and profile of the sample, the desirability bias in the respondents' statements, or the mismatch in the variables under analysis in the survey and shopper panel data. These are issues that are tremendously difficult to resolve without redoing the research underpinning the paper. however, I understand that the authors have made a reasonable effort to extend the supporting literature in light of the dominant theoretical frameworks in the study of proenvironmental consumption, to clarify the conditions of the research and show honesty in reflecting issues that may compromise the extrapolation or scope of conclusions. For this reason, I do not want my views to be an obstacle to publication. 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form