Consumer Patterns of Sustainable Clothing Based on Theory of Reasoned Action: Evidence from Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.     The manuscript investigates the consumer patterns of sustainable clothing in Ecuador settings. While I do understand on the contribution of your paper, the underlying aspect of why this research is needed has not been properly addressed. Specifically, on your proposed conceptual framework. What is so unique on your proposed constructs? In what ways(s) have the past literature failed to provide valuable information on some of these constructs? Simply adopting an academic review in this area by citing a list of papers and concluding that " not many studies are developed in this field of research in emerging countries such as Ecuador.” (line 62) does not constitute a sufficient contribution.

2.     Reading the introduction, the ‘why-question’ lacks. What is the problem? Why is the scientific community interested in the findings your study will provide? The authors limit themselves to stating that ‘not many studies are developed in this field of research in emerging countries such as Ecuador’. Such argumentations alone do not legitimize a study; the relevance of the research phenomenon and suggested conceptual interrelations remain implicit.

3.     You need to go beyond implying arguments to making them explicitly and argue why it is important to address these limitations in prior research.

4.     Another particular weakness of the paper is on the contribution given that it does not develop new theoretical perspectives. Additionally, the practical contribution is weak and I am not sure if you need to research to come up with some of the suggestions such as " … evaluating the responses aims to identify consumer behavior to recognize attitude change and provide information that other researchers and industry participants can use for a greater understanding of consumer choice." The suggestions should be specific and practical for organizations to implement.

5.     Several problems minimize your overall contribution to the literature. How has this paper contributed to the existing theory? They are missing at the moment. Ideally, the author should relate the constructs with the relevant theory (e.g., TRA) and critique how the theoretical model can contribute to the existing theory.

6.     You should also explain on the strength and limitation on TRA since you mentioned this in literature. As your study is related to Ecuador, it would be ideal if you can provide more examples of how this is related to your exogenous and endogenous variables.

7.     In your methodology section you mentioned that the data was collected using snowball sampling. Why snowball?

8.     Did the author use the content validity index to test the content validity of the measurement items?

9.     Did you adopt a pre-qualifying questions to filter any unwanted respondents? Also, on what ground were the samples chosen? When did the author conduct the research? and etc.

10.  I would suggest to use the Common Method Factor analysis by Liang et al., (2007) to check if common method bias is a threat in this study. Please refer to Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., Xue, Y., (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quraterly. 31, 59–87.

11.  Multicollinearity test and multivariate skewness should also be reported.

12.  In discussing your results, please elaborate if current study is also consistent with findings from past studies in other country settings. They are missing at the moment! The discussion should include further discussion on the previous findings in relation to the existing ones. e.g., the differences and your contributions.

13.  Your managerial implication is generic and were something which a reader could have pictured from reading the manuscript. Without this information, it will be difficult to assess if the paper has bridge the gap between theory and practice.

14.  Limitations and future research are too brief. It is too cursory.

15.  Please do thorough grammatical checking to the manuscript to improve the readability of this study. However, the study could benefit from the use of a proofreader or editor to assist with grammar, as it seems there may be some grammar issues based on the native language of the author.

When completing final reviews of the study, confirm consistency in formatting – overall, I saw few if any concerns if you are using the Sustainability journal reference style.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments has been addressed. Can be accepted.