An Empirical Analysis of the Common Factors Influencing the Sharing and Green Economies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

I was pleased to read this article which provides promising research. Nevertheless, I would like to point out some areas for improvement in your manuscript. I explain my concerns in more detail below. I ask the authors to specifically address each of my comments in your response.

Major comments

 1) ABSTRACT: the abstract should be improved. The objective of the study must be clearly stated.

2) STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER. It is recommended that the results, discussion and conclusions sections are separated. The discussion of results should also be improved.

3) INTRODUCTION: it is recommended that the authors formulate a clear objective of the study in the introduction. The authors pose questions and formulate hypotheses but do not include a precise objective that could facilitate the reader's reading.

On the other hand, it is recommended that the authors include in the first paragraphs of the introduction some references to improve the argumentation of their statements on the concept of the collaborative economy. The following work is suggested:

Jorge-Vázquez, J. (2019). La economía colaborativa en la era digital: Fundamentación teórica y alcance económico. In Economía Digital y Colaborativa: Cuestiones Económicas y Jurídicas; Náñez, S.L., Ed.; Università degli Studì Suor Orsola Benincasa. Eurytonpress: Naples, Italy, 2019. ISBN 9788896055915. [Avalaible at: https://cutt.ly/YEZXeP0 ]

On the other hand, it is recommended that the authors improve the description of the original contribution of their study and its contribution to the advancement of knowledge. The authors indicate that the study is novel in that it takes Romania as the territorial unit of analysis. However, they do not justify the interest of this choice. What characteristics does Romania have that justify its interest in the study? The authors should better justify this question.

4) BACKGROUND REVIEW: it is recommended that the authors extend the literature review with more previous and more recent studies. Some papers are suggested:

-Chivite Cebolla, M. P., Jorge Vázquez, J., & Chivite Cebolla, C. M. (2021). Collaborative economy, a society service? Involvement with ethics and the common good. Business Ethics: A European Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12339. [Avalaible at: https://bit.ly/31Mq5Mz]

-Lyaskovskaya, E., & Khudyakova, T. (2021). Sharing Economy: For or against Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 13(19), 11056. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911056

5) METHODOLOGY: The questionnaires referred to are not provided. It would be advisable to include the questionnaires as an appendix. On the other hand, unless I am mistaken, I do not think I found in the text the period in which the data were collected. 

6) DISCUSSION: the authors should significantly improve this section. In my opinion, it is one of the main weaknesses of their article. Authors should discuss the results from the perspective of the three hypotheses formulated. In addition, Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.

 MINOR COMMENTS:

1) In line 136, the authors state: "In the book "What's mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption", 136 Botsman and Rogers", however, they do not include the quote. It is recommended that this be reviewed.

3) DOI should be included in the references in the bibliography.

2) They should review the citation rules suggested by the journal and homogenise the citation:

"References

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. We recommend preparing the references with a bibliography software package, such as EndNote, ReferenceManager or Zotero to avoid typing mistakes and duplicated references. Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available.

Citations and references in the Supplementary Materials are permitted provided that they also appear in the reference list here.

In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).

1. 1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
   2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.
   3. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.
   4. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C. Title of Unpublished Work. Abbreviated Journal Name stage of publication (under review; accepted; in press).
   5. Author 1, A.B. (University, City, State, Country); Author 2, C. (Institute, City, State, Country). Personal communication, 2012.
   6. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D.; Author 3, E.F. Title of Presentation. In Title of the Collected Work (if available), Proceedings of the Name of the Conference, Location of Conference, Country, Date of Conference; Editor 1, Editor 2, Eds. (if available); Publisher: City, Country, Year (if available); Abstract Number (optional), Pagination (optional).
   7. Author 1, A.B. Title of Thesis. Level of Thesis, Degree-Granting University, Location of University, Date of Completion.
   8. Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year)."

 All in all, this is very promising research.  I hope these comments will be helpful.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You very much for your help in improving our paper.

Answer to Major comments

1) ABSTRACT: In the abstract we introduced the objective of our study, like recommended. Therefore, we used the following sentence: The aim of our research is to determine the common factors of the sharing economy and the green economy and the perception of the Romanian users regarding them.

2) STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER. As recommended, we separated the results, discussion and conclusions, by introducing a new section named ”discussion”. The text for this section was formulated according to the recommendation mentioned in your letter at point 6).

3) INTRODUCTION: According to your recommendation, we explained some specific elements regarding ownership in Romania and the changed view of the new generations. One important element describing Romania is related to the focus on owning property. For example, in the European Union, 69.7% of the population owned the home in 2020. Compared to this situation in Romania 96.1% of the population live in a personal property home. This is the highest percentage in the world. The novelty is to do this study in a country where strong private ownership is prevalent, while the ”Sharing economy” can have strong connotations to the communist past. Other countries with a high degree of home ownership are Slovakia (92%), Hungary and Croatia (both with 91%). Our results can be taken as an input for research in countries presenting also a high ownership with a communist past in order to check if this is an important common element in relationship with the sharing and green economy. 

4) BACKGROUND REVIEW: We included in the introduction and literature review the recommended articles.

5) METHODOLOGY: We prepared a translation of the Google Form questionnaire. We had 8 versions of the questionnaire - as you can see in the links from Google Forms. Everybody tried to bring as many answers as possible.

In rows 453 and 454 we mentioned that the research took place over 60 days. We completed this information. The online questionnaire was completed over 60 days, from September to November 2021.

Please find here the translation of our questionnaire which we attached in the article as an appendix, as recommended.

Questionnaire

The sharing and the green economy

1. Please rate, on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = in total), the extent to which the following factors influence your involvement in the collaborative economy (as a buyer / seller / etc.).
   1. Internet access
   2. Digital skills
   3. Digital platforms
   4. Comfort on digital platforms
   5. comparing offers on digital platforms
   6. Varied offer of products and services on digital platforms
   7. Easy access to information from around the world for products and services
   8. Lower costs through more direct buyer-seller contact
   9. Access to goods without ownership
   10. Access to second hand goods with lower cost
   11. Possibility of protecting the environment by purchasing goods with a certain wear
   12. Possibility of sharing goods to reduce resource consumption
   13. Possibility of recovering part of the investment by selling a good with a certain wear and tear
   14. Possibility of sharing a good to reduce the financial effort related to its exclusive possession
   15. Possibility of recovering part of the investment by renting or lending an asset
   16. Possibility of capitalizing on excess owned resources
   17. Sharing to increase resource efficiency
   18. Sharing spaces for professional activity
   19. Common use of electric scooters
   20. Decreasing consumption through the shared use of goods
   21. Reducing losses / costs through the shared use of goods
   22. Car-sharing to protect the environment
   23. The need to reduce waste
   24. Care for the environment
2. Do you think that the collaborative economy can have a beneficial influence on the development of a green economy? Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = in total)!
3. Did being able to benefit from car-sharing cause you to postpone the purchase of your own car for at least a year? Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = in total)!
4. Did being able to benefit from car-sharing make you give up your personal car? Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = in total)!
5. Do you think that crowdsourcing can support the development of a greener economy? Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = in total)!
6. Do you think that an application, such as Waze or similar, can reduce traffic congestion and thus reduce pollution? Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = in total)!
7. Do you think that crowdsourcing can support smart projects that reduce pollution? Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = in total)!
8. Do you think that crowdsourcing can be used, for example, to design smart homes that provide a greener way of life? Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = in total)!
9. Gender: male or female
10. Origin: urban or rural
11. Education: undergraduate or graduate
12. Professional status: student, employee, manager or business owner
13. Age
14. Income

Google Forms

1. 10 responses, link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1G2pfdLuvhYZzv92023a24bU4HVXBu7ipgUMQVZ8auNE/edit
2. 11 responses, link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1q79NBK-493-hM-Xo9IxTypZrvVImtEvUBh_ToGQvpU0/edit
3. 6 responses, link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1mKpF6xVPzdZ3C3rDv0TEB0WNkwJAPV5ZDir7DKCcepw/edit
4. 122 responses, link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1nWgzKAJn5KxqopGxghDdS2mXcoWwWZzTw8Hbfpwz0io/edit
5. 76 responses, link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/13jGK05nW9zEUwOK6RTrWFAlCE8GoRCuSQNvMmRB9rxA/edit
6. 98 responses, link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1EMvvIz4na9LV-r508hdj1BniFYRd4mBA6UDAlILkHNE/edit
7. 203 responses, link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Oi-6uQedyEKOt9_i0pQnc5PcMZsXmZSsFg4Edrode78/edit
8. 27 responses, link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1V5X_Y97lVY84bLQPH7CxPU1fTDAWHDjdmsJnakEtsj0/edit

6) We rewrote the discussion according to the recommendations.

 

 ANSWER TO MINOR COMMENTS:

1) We included the quote as recommended.

3) We included the DOI and as exception the ISBN.

2) We have reviewed the reference list and made all needed corrections according to your recommendations.

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments on the  paper - An empirical analysis of the common factors influencing the sharing and green economies- are as follows.

The paper presents an interesting analysis and we consider that the research is of interest.

The abstract is clear, presents the purpose of the paper and the results of the research.

The introduction provides the necessary background information and states the objectives of the paper. The author indicate the added value that the paper brings to the existing academic literature.

The content of the paper is coherent with the title.

The whole content of the paper has a logical flow, while the concluding remarks are in full concordance with the approached subject. The research methodology used by the author is adequate for the approached subject.

The references used by the author are appropriate.

We recommend the development of the discussions in section 5. This is an important part of the paper that is rather underdeveloped. The results are briefly explained.

It is not pointed out if the results of the research are in accordance or not with other studies. We recommend that the results obtained from the study should be compared with the results obtained in the case of similar researches from the academic literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You very much for your help in improving our paper.

We reviewed completely the section regarding discussions and separated the results from discussion and conclusions. We added to literature review and discussion five other articles of similar researches from the academic literature.

At the end we added a translation of the questionnaire for a better understanding of our research. In References we included the DOI or ISBN for the papers were this was missing.

We included a revision of the English language.

Best regards,

The authors 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I think the authors have made a remarkable effort to improve the article. They have improved the structure and organisation of the content. On the other hand, the review of the research background has been suitably expanded. The authors have also made an effort to improve the description of the methodology used and the limitations of their study. Finally, in my opinion, the discussion of results can still be improved by incorporating some additional previous studies to enrich the discussion.

Wish you all the best. Best regards,