Consumer Perspectives on Bio-Based Products and Brands—A Regional Finnish Social Study with Future Consumers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting topic.  Please find below a few suggestions for improvement and issues than requires clarification:

• Title of Table 1 – “age deviation” is a bit confusing as title since the table indicates the distribution or structure.
• Lines 248-251 – parentheses are not necessary
• Lines 259-267 – please provide the exact references for both definitions
• Figure 4 to 8 and 10 – are not the best quality, are a bit blurred
• Figure 9-10 – the size of legend can be smaller and the size of the scale should be larger (is not visible)
• How were the non-responses treated? N=47 for the consumer awareness and in later analyses the sample sizes becomes lower (46, 45 and so on). Than in Line 510 are 57 responses, in line 570 are 56 responses. It was a focus group with 50 participants how is it explained a different sample size included in the analysis of each topic. Why not considering the same sample size, same people for all analyses? Please explain.
• Section 4.5 should be fully reconsidered. There is no connection between the conducted research and the methods presented for future research. The potential use of these methods does not reside from teh conducted analyses. These methods can be mentioned in the conclusion section as potential future research direction (as it is done), but certainly not in the results sections and not in detail. This is not a result from the focus groups. The paper does not analyze or at least has not established as a research aim to investigate whether methods such as LCA, LCC etc are suitable for future research. Thus, the presentation of the methods should be excluded. This idea can be developed in another paper (review paper) if the authors consider it important to bring to the academic world at this stage.
• When comparing with the parallel study, please add the reference (for instance line 697 and check the entire manuscript)
• What are the limitations ff the study?
• Appendix – the link provided is too general. Where exactly is the information related to the research?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1:

Title of Table 1 – “age deviation” is a bit confusing as title since the table indicates the distribution or structure.

Response 1:

The table has been revised as: “The age distribution of the online FGD participants” (line 239).

Point 2:

Lines 248-251 – parentheses are not necessary

Response 2:

The parentheses have been removed (lines 251-254).

Point 3:

Lines 259-267 – please provide the exact references for both definitions

Response 3:

The definitions have been added to the references as following:

Definition1:

[41] European Committee for Standardization: European Committee for Standardization: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/biotechnology/bio-based-products_en

 

[42] Kutnik, M., Suttie, E., & Brischke, C. (2017). Durability, efficacy and performance of bio-based construction materials: Standardisation background and systems of evaluation and authorisation for the European market. In Performance of Bio-based Building Materials (pp. 593-610). Woodhead Publishing.

Definition2:

[43] USDA BioPreferred® Program: https://www.biopreferred.gov/BioPreferred/faces/pages/BiobasedProducts.xhtml

Point 4:

Figure 4 to 8 and 10 – are not the best quality, are a bit blurred

Figure 9-10 – the size of legend can be smaller and the size of the scale should be larger (is not visible)

Response 3:

There are new versions with all the above figures, with better resolution.

Point 5:

How were the non-responses treated? N=47 for the consumer awareness and in later analyses the sample sizes becomes lower (46, 45 and so on). Than in Line 510 are 57 responses, in line 570 are 56 responses. It was a focus group with 50 participants how is it explained a different sample size included in the analysis of each topic. Why not considering the same sample size, same people for all analyses? Please explain.

Response 5:

The variation in the N value has been now clarified in the section 3.2. (Materials for the Sustainability Framework), as following:

“The software was limited by the condition that the participants could not be forced to reply to the quantitative questions… Therefore, the sample size (N) value is lower to some of the results section responses.” (lines: 226-227)

 

To underline how the non-responses were treated, and why the value of N is even higher, is clarified in the beginning of the 4. Results -section:

 

“Due to the software limitations, the participants could not be forced to reply to all questions, and therefore the sample size (N) may sometimes be lower to some responses. When the respondents were answering to the open discussions or were allowed to choose multiple options, the N value became higher than 50.” (lines: 254-257)

Point 6:

Section 4.5 should be fully reconsidered. There is no connection between the conducted research and the methods presented for future research. The potential use of these methods does not reside from teh conducted analyses. These methods can be mentioned in the conclusion section as potential future research direction (as it is done), but certainly not in the results sections and not in detail. This is not a result from the focus groups. The paper does not analyze or at least has not established as a research aim to investigate whether methods such as LCA, LCC etc are suitable for future research. Thus, the presentation of the methods should be excluded. This idea can be developed in another paper (review paper) if the authors consider it important to bring to the academic world at this stage.

Response 6:

This revision is highly justifiable. The section has been completely removed from 1 Introduction (lines: 122-138), section 4.5 (lines 593-681) and references [29-39] and [52-43].

Point 7:

When comparing with the parallel study, please add the reference (for instance line 697 and check the entire manuscript)

Response 7:

The reference for the parallel study [6] has been carefully checked throughout the manuscript and revised in lines: 712 and 736.

Point 8:

What are the limitations of the study?

Response 8:

The limitations have been addressed in the beginning of the 5. Conclusion, in lines 795-809, accordingly:

“The limitations of the qualitative social design study are well acknowledged. Chen et al. clarify that social design researchers often produce “local” understanding that describes the context, that cannot be applied to other, even similar, cases, and the results may be considered something temporary rather than long-standing [1]. As opposite, the strength of the qualitative social design research is the in-depth perception and active user participation that is conducted with a longer timespan than e.g. questionnaire-based quantitative research. In essence, our research was based on the local understanding, with a limited qualitative regional study sample comprising 50 consumers in Finland that focused on the consumer perspective and future expectations related to bio-based products (BBP) and brands. Throughout the article, the results were supplemented with the quantitative surveys conducted in Ireland and the Netherlands, published by Gaffey et al. [Error! Reference source not found.], in order to produce perspective to the regional study and overcome the limitations of the qualitative research.”

Point 9:

Appendix – the link provided is too general. Where exactly is the information related to the research?

Response 9:

Our institution will add supplementary material after the publication to our publication portal (PURE). The general address is: https://cris.vtt.fi/  In case of approval, we will add there: Appendix A: the questionnaire used in the asynchronous online FGD, and the Statement of the Ethical Committee of VTT.

You can find the appendices as PDF now in the submission service (Unfortunately, in the first phase of submission it was not possible to add supplementary material to MDPI). 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

-

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is mainly descriptive and the number of 50 interviews appears rather limited even if organized and structured in the form of Focus Group Discussions. The article is part of a research project that includes three regional studies. The results from Ireland and the Netherlands are been published in Sustainability and refer to an adequate number of consumers interviewed (500 for each of the two countries). It is suggested to include articles in the literature section that also take into account the consumer's point of view and studies relating to production and transition towards sustainability. I also suggest caution on LCA, LCC, SLCA, and SD because these approaches refer to production processes that are not always able to clearly grasp their sustainability.  The methodological system based on 50 consumers has a very limited distribution in the different categories by brand (example table 3). The data does not seem significant enough. It is also emphasized that the only information on the 50 participants in the distribution by age group. The occupation, the role (are they experts?) And the reasons that led the authors to choose them for the Focus Group Discussions are unknown. In fact, the authors state that subjects are highly informed on these aspects (lines 693-695). Also in Lines 240-242, it states: "It should be noted, that due to the specificity of the group selection and its size, the research results are generalized knowledge of the entire population". Can you clarify on the basis of which statistical data you make this statement? With reference to the Focus Group Discussions, a limitation that often emerges is the high reciprocal influence that participants tend to have in order to appear more available and prepared. Have you encountered this problem? Line 99. Quotation [73]. There are no references.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1:

The paper is mainly descriptive and the number of 50 interviews appears rather limited even if organized and structured in the form of Focus Group Discussions. The article is part of a research project that includes three regional studies. The results from Ireland and the Netherlands are been published in Sustainability and refer to an adequate number of consumers interviewed (500 for each of the two countries). It is suggested to include articles in the literature section that also take into account the consumer's point of view and studies relating to production and transition towards sustainability.

The methodological system based on 50 consumers has a very limited distribution in the different categories by brand (example table 3). The data does not seem significant enough.

Response 1:

The limitations are acknowledged, and they have been addressed in the beginning of the 5. Conclusion, in lines 795-809, accordingly:

“The limitations of the qualitative social design study are well acknowledged. Chen et al. clarify that social design researchers often produce “local” understanding that describes the context, that cannot be applied to other, even similar, cases, and the results may be considered something temporary rather than long-standing [1]. As opposite, the strength of the qualitative social design research is the in-depth perception and active user participation that is conducted with a longer timespan than e.g. questionnaire-based quantitative research. In essence, our research was based on the local understanding, with a limited qualitative regional study sample comprising 50 consumers in Finland that focused on the consumer perspective and future expectations related to bio-based products (BBP) and brands. Throughout the article, the results were supplemented with the quantitative surveys conducted in Ireland and the Netherlands, published by Gaffey et al. [Error! Reference source not found.], in order to produce perspective to the regional study and overcome the limitations of the qualitative research.”

The reference section with 46 articles (and links) (reduced from the previous submission to 60) seems to be even now too substantial with a regional study. Due to the large number of suggested literature from external pre-reviewers we would like to limit the consumer's point of view in the references [Error! Reference source not found.–Error! Reference source not found.; 19-23]: principally EU-funded research projects, and circular economy [24-28].

Point 2:

I also suggest caution on LCA, LCC, SLCA, and SD because these approaches refer to production processes that are not always able to clearly grasp their sustainability. 

Response 2:

This revision is highly justifiable. The section has been completely removed from 1 Introduction (lines: 122-138), section 4.5 (lines 593-681) and references [29-39] and [52-43].

Point 3:

It is also emphasized that the only information on the 50 participants in the distribution by age group. The occupation, the role (are they experts?) And the reasons that led the authors to choose them for the Focus Group Discussions are unknown. In fact, the authors state that subjects are highly informed on these aspects (lines 693-695). Also in Lines 240-242, it states: "It should be noted, that due to the specificity of the group selection and its size, the research results are generalized knowledge of the entire population". Can you clarify on the basis of which statistical data you make this statement? With reference to the Focus Group Discussions, a limitation that often emerges is the high reciprocal influence that participants tend to have in order to appear more available and prepared. Have you encountered this problem?

Response 3:

Due to the new GDPR regulations, we had to leave most of the participant-sensitive information out from the article. Our institutional ethical committee was demanding that because of the small sample size this data cannot be published in an open-publication article. (This was the first study we have published under these new strict guidelines, and it is understandable that more information may be needed.) the carefully selected information is in lines 230-238. In case you find it intolerable to review the results without this data, please let us know the necessary information, and we will start the process with our ethical committee to negotiate about opening more data. When we state that the participants were “highly informed”, we mean the information they produced during the FGD (now stressed in lines 699) and not their background. Thank you very much for these insightful comments. We also strongly feel that that the fact that FGD participants tend to appear more available and prepared is more strength than weakness. Especially when we have the quantitative data in our mixed methods approach presented in Fig 1. This has now been explained in lines 221-222, as follows: “The one-week research period allowed the participants to be more available and prepared, as compared to the quantitative questionnaire used in [6].”

Point 4:

Line 99. Quotation [73]. There are no references.

Response 4:

We apologize the problem: there was a typo in ref [73], it has now been revised as [13].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have clarified all points addressed.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper in discussion highlighted limitations request by reviewer and eliminated reference on LCA that was less developped . Paper can be accepted in present form. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work has a very interesting goal and the research is very topical. However, the methodology is not convincing: focus groups, the results of which are only discussed in a descriptive manner. I would propose a questionnaire to be analyzed with inferential statistics, for example. The literature could also be increased, so provide more links also in the discussion of the results. 

Author Response

Dear Academic editors and reviewers of Sustainability,

We thank for the opportunity to revise our manuscript in order to make a reputable contribution. You may find in the MDPI service system the responses for both reviewers (1 and 2) in more detail. We would like to inform that the article has been proof-read by a commercial translation service company. We would also like to inform that we are able to provide the supplementary material online at: https://cris.vtt.fi/ :

• Appendix A: the questionnaire used in the asynchronous online FGD
• Statement of the Ethical Committee of VTT)

If the journal has also additional data service for these documents, it may be proficient for the readers.

 

The greatest improvements are the following:

• New version of 1. Introduction (shorter one) focusing on the case study and overall methodology, in lines 26-54
• New 2. Literature -section with many new references, in lines 55-143
• Revised 3.1. Materials and Methods -section with a new illustration Figure 1, in lines 211-259
• Revised 5. Discussion with new references, in lines 667-768
• New 6. Conclusion -section, including future work, in lines 768-804

 

For your convenience, the new submission is in a ZIP-file that includes the following documents:

• sustainability_consumer_perspective_on_BBP_regional_study_v02 (word document)
• sustainability_consumer_perspective_on_BBP_regional_study_v02 (PDF)
• sustainability_consumer_perspective_on_BBP_regional_study_v02_TRACKCHANGES (word document)
• sustainability_consumer_perspective_on_BBP_regional_study_v02_ TRACKCHANGES (PDF)

(This is due to the great number of revisions we made to the document, i.e. the TRACK Changes version is full of new remarks and may cause the article to be difficult to read.)

We are grateful for the insights of both reviewers as regarding our regional social design case study -article.

 

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1:

“The work has a very interesting goal and the research is very topical. However, the methodology is not convincing: focus groups, the results of which are only discussed in a descriptive manner. I would propose a questionnaire to be analyzed with inferential statistics, for example.” 

Response 1:

Unfortunately, none of our research group was familiar with the inferential statistics. As regarding the methodology, we are referring in our article to qualitative social research approach - social design and socially responsive design - which are qualitative methods in the design discipline. In this new submission we have clarified the methodology by devoting our introduction to explain this in more detail, by restructuring the method section (3.1.) and by adding a new Figure 1 explaining our approach. The references concerning this are:

• Chen, D. S.; Cheng, L. L.; Hummels, C.; Koskinen, I. Social Design: An Introduction. International Journal of Design 2016, 10(1), 1-5.
• Julier, G.; Kimbell, L. Keeping the System Going: Social Design and the Reproduction of Inequalities in Neoliberal Times, Design Issues 2019, 35(4), pp. 12–22.
• Sanders, E. B.-N.; Stappers, P. J. Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design. CoDesign. 2008, pp 5–18.
• Björgvinsson, E.; Ehn, P.; Hillgren, P. A. Participatory Design and “Democratizing Innovation.” ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. 2010, No. Ehn 1988, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900448.
• Ezio Manzini: Design When Everybody Designs. An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Techne : Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment. 2017, pp 360–362. https://doi.org/10.13128/Techne-21142.

Point 2:

“The literature could also be increased, so provide more links also in the discussion of the results.” 

Response 2:

The new Literature -section (2) has been completely revised and it includes many new references (in lines 55-143). These are also carefully revisited in the Discussion -section (4) (in lines 667-768). The references section includes altogether 19 new references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic presented in this work is really interesting. However several challenges are required:

 

I analyze the single sections:

Abstract has inappropriate structure. I suggest to answer the following aspects: - general context - novelty of the work - methodology used (describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied) - main results and related interpretations.

Introduction: This section should briefly place the study in a wide context and emphasize why it is relevant carrying out the analysis. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. In this perspective, this section is too succinct and fails to effectively point out the relevance of your contribution towards the existing literature.

In this perspective, this section is too succinct and fails to effectively point out the relevance of your contribution towards the existing and recent literature. I would suggest the authors to look generally also on circular bioeconomy.

 

Some literature to look at:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619345184

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106794

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40888-020-00206-4

https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/article/full-text-html/249243&riu=true

 

Moreover, the authors do not provide at the end of the section the description of the paper structure which is very useful for readers.

Materials and methods: I found this section very important for the readability of the paper. the research methodology seems underdeveloped. Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described by means of a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit.

 

Discussions: The discussion of the results is merely descriptive and the obtained evidence is flimsy due to the fact the outcomes are not supported by an adequate discussion in light of scientific literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.

 

Conclusions: Conclusions must also be revised according to the previous comments. In particular, they should discuss practical and policy implications as well as future lines of research. As it stands now, they fail to extract all the juice of your work. 

 

I hope these comments might help in improving the paper and encourage the authors to move forward.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1:

“Abstract has inappropriate structure. I suggest to answer the following aspects: - general context - novelty of the work - methodology used (describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied) - main results and related interpretations.”

Response 1:

The abstract has been complete revised according to the reviewer comments and the requirements of the journal.

Point 2:

“Introduction: This section should briefly place the study in a wide context and emphasize why it is relevant carrying out the analysis. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. In this perspective, this section is too succinct and fails to effectively point out the relevance of your contribution towards the existing literature.”

Response 2:

This comment has been revised accordingly. The context of the former introduction has been divided into two sections:

1. Introduction (shorter one) focusing on the case study and overall methodology, in lines 26-54
2. Literature -section with many new references, in lines 55-143

In addition, the new references are also carefully revisited in the Discussion -section (4) (in lines 667-768).

Point 3:

“In this perspective, this section is too succinct and fails to effectively point out the relevance of your contribution towards the existing and recent literature. I would suggest the authors to look generally also on circular bioeconomy.”

Response 3:

The new Literature -section is completely revised, including many new references. (The references section includes altogether 19 new references, most applied to the Literature -section.)

 One whole paragraph has been devoted for Circular Bioeconomy, in lines 109-121. The following CE references have been added to the reference section:

• Figge, F.; Givry, P.; Canning, L.; Franklin-Johnson, E.; Thorpe, A. Eco-efficiency of virgin resources: a measure at the interface between micro and macro levels. Ecol. Econ., 138 (2017), 12-21, 1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.016.
• Smol, M.; Kulczycka, J.; Avdiushchenko, A. Circular economy indicators in relation to eco-innovation in European regions. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy, 19 (2017), 669-678, 1007/s10098-016-1323-8.
• Di Maio, F.; Rem, P.C. A robust indicator for promoting circular economy through recycling. J. Environ. Prot. (2015), 1095-1104, 4236/jep.2015.610096.
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Granta Design. Circularity Indicators. An approach to measuring circularity, Circular Indicators: an approach to measuring circularity. Methodology (2015), 1016/j.giq.2006.04.004.
• Aranda-Usón, A.; Portillo-Tarragona, P.; Scarpellini, S.; Llena-Macarulla, F. The progressive adoption of a circular economy by businesses for cleaner production: An approach for a regional study in Spain.Production, 247, 20 February 2020, 119648. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119648.

 

Point 4:

“Moreover, the authors do not provide at the end of the section the description of the paper structure which is very useful for readers.”

Response 4:

 This description has been included to the new Introduction, in lines 47-54.

Point 5:

“Materials and methods: I found this section very important for the readability of the paper. the research methodology seems underdeveloped. Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described by means of a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit.”

Response 5:

In the revised version, we have paid careful attention to this matter in several places. In the new Introduction, we are referring to qualitative social research approach - social design and socially responsive design - which are qualitative methods in the design discipline. We have clarified the methodology also by restructuring the method section (3.1.) and by adding a new diagram (Figure 1) explaining our approach, as requested by the reviewer.

Point 6:

“Discussions: The discussion of the results is merely descriptive and the obtained evidence is flimsy due to the fact the outcomes are not supported by an adequate discussion in light of scientific literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.”

Response 6:

Discussion -section (5) has been completely revised, in lines 667-768. The section includes many of the Literature -section references, and those has been compared to the case study results when possible and the implications discussed.

Point 7:

“Conclusions: Conclusions must also be revised according to the previous comments. In particular, they should discuss practical and policy implications as well as future lines of research. As it stands now, they fail to extract all the juice of your work.” 

Response 7:

The revised version of the article includes a new Conclusion -section, in lines 768-804. The future work is discussed in the last paragraph, in lines 796-804.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your revised version.

Some other efforts are required to report some relevant studies on consumer acceptance (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108248) and related uncertainty (https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/article/full-text-html/249243&riu=true).

 

 

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer 2 for providing additional references on consumer acceptance and uncertainty; we have included both of them to the revised version of the article. They are included in the discussion-section, starting form p. 17 (line 670) and referenced as:

57. Falcone, P. M., Imbert, E. Tackling Uncertainty in the Bio-Based Economy. International Journal of Standardization Research (IJSR), 2019, 17(1), 74-84. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJSR.2019010105
58. Morone, P.; Caferra, R.; D'Adamo I.; Falcone, P. M.; Imbert, E.; Morone, A. Consumer willingness to pay for bio-based products: Do certifications matter? International Journal of Production Economics, 2021, 240, 108248.

In addition, the new version of the manuscript has been carefully read through, and some minor changes have been added throughout the document to improve the reading experience.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf