Exploring the Impact of Integrated Marketing Communication Tools on Green Product Purchase Intentions among Diverse Green Consumer Segments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this interesting and important research about how to segment the green products and services among the consumers. Overall, I thought that the study is well done and it is only minor comments/suggestions I have. For the first, you have employed convenience sampling by distributing the questionnaire online  targeting primarily online green food communities and online green food discussion boards in Taiwan. With this target audience you'll miss the opinions of those consumers who are not interested in  green food or even resist it. By letting these consumers say their opinions, would perhaps give interesting results.

The theoretical discussion is rather concise - although multifaceted. As regards IMC-discussion there are only few references. Instead, the Media richness theory was quite thoroughly presented - and a fresh viewpoint. 

As to the theoretical references, they seem to be rather up to date, with minor exceptions. For example, in the IMC subsection you refer to Carlson et al. (1996) debating that firms should convey a green image using more than one method, and IMC strategies should be the most effective way to build environmental awareness. This reference is rather old when thinking about how much more widespread the green philosophy is nowadays.

Many of the survey questions are mentioned in the paper, but still it would be good to see the whole list of them as an appendix.

Author Response

1.     Thanks for this comment from the reviewer. This study only focus on online green food communities and online green food discussion boards in Taiwan will miss the opinions of those consumers who are not interested in green food or even resist it. It is indeed possible to lose some interesting opinions and results. We will put this valuable suggestion in the research limitations for future research. 2.     Thanks for this valuable comment. We have added more and latest references about IMC. For example, we added the references of Parameswaran (2023) and Jackson et al. (2014). 3.     Thanks again for this meaningful comment and we have added the whole questionnaire in the appendix 1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

After going over your interesting paper, I find that the paper has merit to be published, however I consider that it can be slightly improved by:

- offering claification for paragraf 2.3 (paragraph between 121-136), you mention that the media richness theory proposed by Daft el al. (1987) and aftewords you mention 'however, previous studies ..... (line 124)' and you mention in lines 124 - 126 authors after 1987 - pleas clarify

- for the analysis of the results, it wold be beneficial that you include a profile of the respondents as well as a graphical component for the cluster analysis and its results (lines 219 - 232) 

I consider that these changes can offer a better insight in understanding the analysis and its results and offer a clearer way of seeing the conclusions, discussion and the limitations of the paper. 

Looking forward to seeing the new version 

Author Response

1.     Thanks for this comment. We have change the statement of this paragraph like “The media richness theory proposed by Daft et al. (1987) explores the value of different types of media based on the characteristics of media from an information processing perspective to explain how to meet an organization’s requirements for adequate information and reduce message ambiguity. However, many studies often measured media richness using a single construct (e.g., D’Ambra et al., 1998; Lim & Benbasat, 2000; Trevino et al., 1990). Ferry et al. (2001) pointed out that past studies have not been able to measure the constructs of media richness in depth.” In lines 142 – 148. 2.     Appreciate for this comment from reviewer and we added the profile of the respondents in Appendix 2 and added the consumer cluster analysis in Table 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Your paper is a first attempt to publish your results about the effect of integrated marketing communication instruments on green product purchase intentions among green consumers. All in all, your paper demands serious work to be publishable in Sustainability.

The central issue is a more precise variable definition and explanation in section 2 -Literature Review. Although you use convenience sampling in a hypothetic-deductive approach, articles demand a proper description of the scales and hypotheses you measure using questionnaires. None of such details appear in your writing.

Following such a lack of clarity, reading your analysis and results and seeing the coherence between your pretended contribution and the article's results is difficult.

Please review and resubmit. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper demands some English language editions.

Author Response

1. Appreciate for this comment from reviewer and we have added the variable definition and explanation in section 2 -Literature Review. For example, we added the Green Consumers’ definition of White et al. (2019) and the functions and roles of IMC proposed by Jackson et al. (2014) and Parameswaran (2023). Meanwhile, we added a proper description of the method and scale of each variables.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the manuscript with great interest. The subject matter is very topical and the suggested shot is very interesting. As far as implementation is concerned, however, I see some shortcomings that need to be worked on. Here are a few remarks that I think will help make the manuscript more perfect:

1.                Abstract – I miss a clearly written purpose of the article.

2.                Introduction – as in the abstract: there is no clearly defined goal. What are the authors' intentions? What do they want to achieve? Why did they take up such a topic and pursue it in such a way? In this section, the last paragraph of section 2 of the Literature review will be useful. At the end, the structure of the article could also be presented.

3.                Literature review – this section is very short and superficial. In particular, the topic of Integrated Marketing Communication is underdeveloped. It is worth describing this concept, indicating its tools, possibilities of application and impact on the consumer. The last paragraph fits the Introduction, because it is not a "Literature review" but a description of the authors' intentions. It is a pity that the authors did not put forward (did not derive) any hypotheses.

4.                Methods – this section is described quite extensively. However, the use of measurement scales (section 3.1.1) raises doubts. The Likert scale is a scale of agreement rather than frequency. The scale expressions are not very clear. What is the difference between "rarely" and "occasionally" answers? The title of point 3.2 – content does not correspond to the term "design", it refers to the testing of the questionnaire. Section 3.3 lacks the characteristics of the research sample, e.g. from the point of view of demographic or social characteristics. To what extent does the sample reflect the consumer population, including organic consumers?

5.                Analysis and results – in Table 1 it would be useful to show the ANOVA values for all IMC tools. This would give a complete picture and confirm the validity of further considerations. In some places, there is a lack of a broader presentation of statistics confirming the authors' statements. The discussion of the results is too short, practically non-existent.

6.                Conclusion and limitation – conclusions should be supported to a greater extent by references to research results. The restrictions are also very short and not very specific. There is no broader indication of the limitations of the sample and its selection, the measurement method and tools, or the scope of the organic products analysed. Such limitations should definitely be pointed out and commented upon.

I hope that my comments will contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. Good luck!

Author Response

1.     Thanks for this comment from the reviewer. This study had added the purpose in “Abstract” and the purpose of this study is to explore the preferences of different IMC tools among different types of green consumers and then attempt to propose effective communication tools for different types of green consumers to boost sustainable consumption. 2.     Appreciate for this comment from reviewer. This study has taken and modified the last paragraph of section 2 of the Literature review in Introduction to show the research motivation and goals. 3.     Thanks for this valuable comment. We have added more and latest references about IMC. For example, we added the references of Parameswara (2023) and Jackson et al. (2014). Due to the purpose of this study is to explore the preferences of different IMC tools among different types of green consumers and then attempt to propose effective communication tools for different types of green consumers to boost sustainable consumption. This study did not put forward (did not derive) any hypotheses. However, this study examined 13 widely used integrated marketing communication (IMC) tools and delved into their impact on the purchase intentions of different consumer segments toward green products. 4.     Thanks for this comment from the reviewer. We added a proper description of the scale of each variable. Furthermore, the difference between "rarely" and "occasionally" answers is rarely means not often and the occasionally means sometimes but not often. From a frequency perspective, there is a difference in degree. Also, we have modified the title of point 3.2 to “Pre-test analysis results”. At last, we added the characteristics of the research sample in section 3.3 and the demographic distribution of participants in the appendix. 5.     Appreciate for this comment from reviewer. We added the ANOVA values for all IMC tools in Table 3 (previously it was Table 1) and added EFA of green behavior among consumer in Table 1. 6.     Many thanks to the reviewer for providing this valuable opinion. The conclusions of this study be supported to a greater extent by references to research results and added the limitations of the sample and its selection, the measurement method and tools, and the scope of the organic products analyzed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations, this paper improved and it is ready to be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor revisions must be done.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the corrections and additions made. Most of my comments have been taken into account. Although the literature review could still be expanded, the authors' corrections and explanations can be considered sufficient.