Prolificacy of Green Consumption Orientation and Environmental Knowledge to Slash Plastic Bag Consumption: The Moderating Role of Consumer Attitudes and the Demarketing Efforts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review the article, please note the followings:

1.      The introduction section needs to be consistent and comprehensive , for example if you check lines 78,79, 95 , they all talk about the objective of the study, why do not you clearly write the problem and research gap and conclude with the objectives of the study to avoid confusing the readers with new additional objectives.

2.      The title is confusing and lengthy , I advise rephrasing it as “"Green Consumption Orientation and Environmental Knowledge: Exploring the Moderating Effects of Demarketing Efforts and Recycling Attitude on Perceived Value of Plastic Use Reduction"

3.      Please include the questionnaire used in the study to allow other researchers to replicate the study and validate your items.

4.      Please support your study with a theory, you may include the TPB or any other theory you feel suitable. The TPB suggests that individuals' attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence their intentions to engage in a particular behavior. In this case, the behavior would be reducing plastic use. Green consumption orientation and environmental knowledge could influence individuals' attitudes towards reducing plastic use. Demarketing efforts and recycling attitude could impact subjective norms by shaping social norms around plastic use reduction. Perceived behavioral control could be influenced by the availability of alternatives to plastic products and the ease with which they can be accessed.

5.      Please show the results of the common method bias.

6.      Please enrich your studies with these articles if you wish Unleashing environmental performance: The impact of green entrepreneurial motivation on small enterprises (2023), Green Innovation, Self-Efficacy, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Economic Performance: Interactions among Saudi Small Enterprises (2023).

7.      Please proofread the article, there are many places where grammar correction is required.

8.      Focus more on describing the research problem in the context of the study.

 

 

All the best

 

Needs proofreading

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article under review deals with the consumption of plastic bags and their impact on the environment. It reflects the growing concern in many countries to regulate this situation in order to try to influence citizens to abstain or reduce plastic consumption. The authors conducted a questionnaire with 976 responses to analyze what factors influence behavior to reduce plastic consumption. The authors find that negative marketing, education or social orientation are determining factors.
The article is interesting and addresses a very topical issue around the world.
The article has an a priori correct structure, except for some issues that I will detail later. The organization and the level of English make it easy to read.
However, I must point out a series of problems that the authors should correct in their article.
Firstly, the introduction should provide more information on the global plastic pollution situation. For example, who are the main provokers of plastic pollution in oceans etc. Their evolution. This should be reviewed. I think a graph or figure about it would be good.
Secondly, in the literature review, they carry out the division by sub sections. In a literature review it is expected that the authors make a synthesis of previous studies on the subject but not this division into sections.
They also take the opportunity to include the hypotheses here. This should be done either in the introduction, right at the end, and before describing the structure of the article or, failing that, in the methodology section.
Methodology. I think this section needs improvement. First of all it should be called materials and methodology or similar.
Contain first of all your data source, your survey. They should give more information about how they have collected those data, through which way etc. And above all, they should justify why that number is representative. The latter is not observed.
Secondly, in the methodology there should be a synthesis of the hypotheses and then describe the method used and indicate if they follow previous studies. But do not divide the methodology into several sections.
In the results, Figures 3 and 4 are of very low quality and also their explanations are very improvable.
Discussion of results
The aim of this section is to compare their results with other previous studies. But this is not executed. There is almost no comparison.
While the policy implications or future lines if correct.
I recommend you at this point to divide what are the discussion of results properly, with the conclusions themselves.


Some minor issues
The figures should have the source at the end. Own elaboration or extracted from... And it is not observed in any of them.
Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Being the use of plastic bags a growing environmental concern, this research investigates the role of consumers' green orientation, environmental knowledge, and perceived instrumentality of demarketing efforts in enhancing the perceived value of plastic usage curtailment. It uses a Partial Least Squares equation modelling to find a quite obvious result. That is the direct positive effects of consumers' green commitment, environmental knowledge and perceived instrumentality of demarketing efforts in strengthening their perception about the validity of reducing usage of plastic bags. 

Some edition of English is needed. For instance, is not "Green Peace" but Greenpeace; is not correct to use "demarking of certain activities" as the meaning "demark" is to separate distinctly; "have often proven"; "demarketing social marketing campaign"...

Similarly, there is a certain abuse of acronyms. Figure 1 does not follow the edition norms, and there is a repetition of table 2. Last but not least, the provocative title does not correspond with the overall content of the article.

Some edition of English is needed. For instance, is not "Green Peace" but Greenpeace; is not correct to use "demarking of certain activities" as the meaning "demark" is to separate distinctly; "have often proven"; "demarketing social marketing campaign"...

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

satisfied

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for responding to my observations and comments. I think the article is ready to be accepted
Best regards,