Sustainable Consumption: Conceptualization and Characterization of the Complexity of “Being” a Sustainable Consumer—A Systematic Review of the Scientific Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript seeks to systematize the results of the existing scientific research on SC in SCOPUS and Web of Science under the four main research questions regarding the concept of SC, circular economy, sustainable consumer, and the role of government. This systemic literature review presented in this manuscript is meaningful in the sense that the authors concentrated on the latest findings and covered core concepts and topics. One point I am concerned about is that the contents of Tabl3 and Table 4 may not be necessary as the research findings.

Author Response

Revisor 1

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your appreciation of our research, highlighting its relevance. Your opinion and constructive contributions are very important to us in order to make better contributions to the scientific community.

We also appreciate your observation regarding tables 3 and 4. Although they were considered, we have followed the PRISMA methodology and analyzed various systematic reviews published in different journals to systematically represent all characteristics that can reveal the state of the main category or variable under study.

Thank you for your recommendations.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is of a review nature. It presents a summary of the occurrence of various types of concepts related to sustainable consumption. The main aim of the article is to systematize the existing scientific literature on sustainable consumption in SCOPUS and WOS. Questions were also raised: How is sustainable consumption conceptualized, and what does it encompass? What is the connection between circular economy and sustainable consumption? What are the implications for the consumer in sustainable consumption? How should the government act in sustainable consumption? I consider these goals appropriate. 

The article is definitely a valuable contribution to the current scientific achievements. It can be an interesting basis for citing articles by international researchers of sustainable consumption. The issues of circular economy and sustainable development were combined. It was indicated in the article that being a green consumer in today's market is not easy. It is also not easy to analyze this phenomenon, because many variables must be analyzed simultaneously / many conditions must be met. The authors emphasized the role of the government, whose task it is to define the laws and rules to be followed by consumers and industry. Such a comprehensive approach is an important contribution to the scientific achievements of this field. 

I believe the adopted methodology is correct. The conclusions were satisfactorily substantiated by the results of the analyses. 

It is worth emphasizing that the article refers to 124 items of literature. Of course, this scope does not exhaust the available sources in the field of "sustainable consumer" - and such a limitation probably results from the adopted research methodology - searching for articles in specific scientific databases. On the other hand, it would probably be difficult to reach publications, even valuable and recognized in individual countries of publication, which have not been indexed in global databases (e.g. Scopus). The references are suitable to the topic of the article. 

Additional comments: 

• Line 64: instead of WOS - WoS should be written 
• Line 552: instead of Wos - WoS should be written 

To sum up: the paper is up-to-date, addresses the important and catchy issue of sustainable consumption. It has the potential to be quoted many times. In my opinion, after making some minor corrections, it can be published.

Author Response

Revisor 2

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your appreciation of our research and highlighting its relevance. Your opinion and constructive contributions are very important to us in order to make better contributions to the scientific community.

We acknowledge the limitations mentioned in your comments, which are a part of the review process, and we have mentioned them in the final part of the paper. As you mentioned, relevant literature not indexed in Web of Science and Scopus, such as conference papers, governmental or corporate reports, and articles from certain publishers or in languages other than English, may have been ignored. We have made every effort to reduce subjectivity by prioritizing articles from high-impact journals, but it is still possible that relevant literature from lower-impact scientific journals or grey literature may have been missed.

Regarding the corrections requested for the lines with writing errors, we have completely addressed them as per your request.

Thank you for your recommendations.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Article is well structured and the topic is interesting. However, following comments should be addressed prior to further processing of the article.  

 

1)      Refer to abstract: Text at line # 22 and 26 is repeated. Careful review of whole article is required.

2)      Refer to line # 61: Repetition of text is again observed here.

3)      Refer 2^nd last paragraph of Section 1: Every short form must be described prior to its occurrence in the text.  

4)      Refer to line # 102: Reference for PRISMA 2020 is missing.

5)      Refer to figure 1: Check “g” of screening. Further, red lined data does not seem good. It should be corrected to avoid red lined text in image.

6)      Refer to table 2: Study is being processed in 2023 and IF and SJR belong to 2021?

7)      Refer to table 6: Caption states 9Rs whereas 10Rs are discussed inside table?

8)      Refer to line # 64, 130 and 552: Same short form WoS/Scopus is mentioned in different forms. Ensure a consistent style throughout the article.

9)      Refer to whole article: Inclusion of a summary table for cited literature would be helpful in better understanding of the article. Authors are encouraged to go through following study to have an idea regarding summary table. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316317  

 

Good luck.    

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Revisor 3

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your appreciation of our research and highlighting its relevance. Your opinion and constructive contributions are very important to us in order to make better contributions to the scientific community.

We acknowledge that there were some unintentional writing and repetition errors in the original version. We have taken the necessary measures and executed the requested corrections, which can be seen in the updated version.

Abbreviations have been mentioned in their first appearance and consistently used throughout the text. We have also added the requested reference to PRISMA and corrected the recommendations in the systematic review figure.

Regarding Table 2, the metrics provided by the databases are the most recent available and there has been no update to date.

Regarding the table referencing the 9R, although there are 10 mentioned, the authors only refer to 9 as R0, which stands for reduction, is not considered as one.

Regarding the requested bibliographic summary table to better understand the article, we have created summary tables of the main concepts and key ideas extracted from the main conceptualizations and topics covered.

Thank you for your recommendations.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Good research topic but I find it difficult to identify any significant contribution of this review. Your research objectives looks vague and not focused.

 

RQ1: How is SC conceptualized, and what does it encompass?
The findings is presented in 3.1 but need to improve. Good if you can present using a table the major conceptualization of SC and number of articles mentioning it.

RQ2: What is the link between the CE and SC? Why do you want to study this?
Number of articles covering CE and SC link? What was their finding?

RQ3: What are the implications for the consumer in SC?
How many articles covered implications?

The research focus can be improved so that your systematic review will help the future researcher. Good if the authors give a brief introduction to sustainable consumption. Previous systematic research review on SC not covered.  Research future direction not provided. Need to improve theoretical and practical implications of the study.

 

Previous research work on sustainable consumption.

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/13771

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126880

https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629211022520

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3999

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2020.1811441

 

Wish you all the best.

Author Response

Revisor 4

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your feedback on our research and your recognition of its relevance. Your constructive criticism and suggestions are very important to us in order to make better contributions to the scientific community.

Regarding question 1 about the conceptualizations of sustainable consumption, they are presented in section 3.1, including the narrative that explains its scope, as well as a table with the main conceptualizations, the number of articles that support the question, and the section in which they are presented.

The connection between EC and SC is mainly because sustainable consumption is a prerequisite for the circular economy, as can be seen in table 7. Among the authors that address this relationship, we can mention Garcia, D.G.; Kipnis, E.; Vasileiou, E.; Solomon, A. in their article "Consumption in the Circular Economy: Learning from Our Mistakes" (2021, Vol. 13), where they define sustainable consumption as the microeconomic basis upon which the circular paradigm is built. In other words, sustainable consumption is a prerequisite for the applicability of the circular economy, because a successful transition to a circular economy requires adapting more circular patterns of consumption.

Section 3.2 is titled "The 'symbiotic' relationship between sustainable consumption/consumers and circular economy," and addresses the questions asked, providing robust conclusions. It cites a minimum of "22" sources, in addition to those already considered throughout the document. Its main conclusions are presented throughout the writing of the sub-topic and in the discussion section.

The research question 3 has been reformulated due to a misinterpretation of the translation. The intention was to argue about the difficulties involved in being or having a sustainable behavior. Therefore, subtopic 3.3 "The complexity of 'being' a sustainable consumer" was developed. It cites a minimum of "31" sources, in addition to those already considered throughout the document. Its main conclusions are presented throughout the writing of the sub-topic and in the discussion section.

We have revised the background information presented in paragraph 4 of the introduction, before the research questions. It is presented in a concise but significant way, defining the previous research that has defined sustainable consumption. We have added argumentative paragraphs regarding the theoretical and practical implications, as well as proposals for future research, providing suggestions for relevant scientific approaches.

Regarding previous research on sustainable consumption, we appreciate your suggestions for literature that can improve the argumentation and defense of our research proposal. Some of them have been considered, while others were already included, and others were added to emphasize your recommendations.

Thank you very much, and we hope to have faithfully fulfilled your suggestions.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The article looks good now. Wish you all the best. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations, all of which have been fully addressed.

Including the stylistic and editorial issues.

Regards.