Consumer, Retailer, and Producer Green Orientation as a Marketing Driver: An Empirical Study in an Urban Food Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for the invitation to review this article. The authors address an interesting topic in the sustainability literature. Please, find below my feedback, including comments and suggestions:

1. I would recommend significantly improving the literature review section by consulting relevant references from the literature. For example, authors could read the following articles in order to assume a theory and also to support their hypothesis:

Dabija, D.C., Campian, V., Pop, R.A., Băbuț, R. 2022. Generating Loyalty towards Fast Fashion Stores: A Cross-Generational Approach based on Store Attributes and Socio-environmental Responsibility. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(3), pp.891-934. p-ISSN 2083-1277. e-ISSN 2353-1827, https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.026

Dabija, D.C., Bejan, B., Grant, D. 2018. The Impact of Consumer Green Behaviour on Green Loyalty among Retail Formats: A Romanian Case Study. Moravian Geographical Reports, 26(3), pp.173-185, http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2018-0014

Grădinaru, C.; Obadă, D.-R.; Grădinaru, I.-A.; Dabija, D.-C. Enhancing Sustainable Cosmetics Brand Purchase: A Comprehensive Approach Based on the SOR Model and the Triple Bottom Line. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114118

I would also suggest to the authors refer to references from the literature regarding the green orientation of consumers (1 section), the green orientation of local producers (1 section), and the green orientation of local food producers (1 section). This could lead to a better structure of the theoretical part of the paper. I consider that 10-15 references for each subsection could lead to a major improvement.

2. The authors should better support their statements: „Several research studies have been conducted (which one?), mostly centered on consumers' sustainable behaviors, regarding local products and local (which one?) or „ Previous studies (which one?) have often applied demographic segmentations to explain the differences in consumers’ behaviors, examining variables as gender, age, educational level, and family size.” I would strongly recommend a more rigorous approach to argumentation.

3. The authors should clarify some methodological aspects:

3.1. The authors argue that the scale they used for GO was adopted from Haws, but it is unclear if they run a pilot study (e.g., for translation of the items, comprehension, etc.).

3.2. The data distribution statistics should be presented in order to support the nonparametric tests they used.

3.3. The authors should compare the GO as a composite variable, and not compare each item. In the multi-item scales case, the items should measure the same concept.  Therefore, a total score should be computed for the variable and the results between groups should be compared based on this composite score. It is not clear why the authors compared the statistics for each item between groups. Therefore, I would strongly recommend improving the statistical analysis.

3.4. The authors should also refer to the fact that the analyzed groups have a different number of observations. Are there any restrictions in the analysis they performed? Relevant methodological references should be cited.

4. I would also recommend splitting de 4th section into two different ones: discussion and conclusions. Also, the authors should include a separate section: study limits and future research.

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for the new valuable comments and suggestions. We analyzed them carefully and revised the paper accordingly. W e present with more details the way we treat your comments and suggestions.

We introduced improvements in the literature review, according to the recommendations of the reviewer 1 and consulted relevant references from the literature to support the statements

We have improved the text to support our choices in terms of stakeholders to be analyzed and their segmentation

In terms of methodological aspects…. We believe that adaption of the green scale to traders and producers is one of the novelties of our study. Your comment was very important because it highlighted the need to clarify this aspect and to reinforce its importance. In the research designed section we have now explained with more detail how this adaptation was made, including the translation and pretesting discussion

In the beginning of the results section, we have now inserted a new table with the suggested statistics, to clarify the non-normality distribution of the variables under study.

We created and explained the GO composite score proposed. In the results tables and its comments, we have now used the composite score to analyze the results, which we believe that have strengthened the paper.

We divided the 4th section into two different ones: discussion and conclusions.  And also, included a separate section: study limits and future research. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I am afraid that the paper has plagiarism. I would request the Editors and Authors as well to re-check the paper and submit it again for review purpose. 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for the your comments and suggestions. We analyzed them carefully and revised the paper accordingly. 

We improved all the paper through the integration of new references and introduced several improvements on the contents and structure of the paper. The paper was reviewed by an English native.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thanks for your effort for providing the current piece of research. It was interesting to read. After reading the manuscript, some concerns came to my mind, which I hope that thinking about them increases the quality of your job.
1.    To begin with, this paper needs English editing. In its present form, there is some not readable at various parts.
2.    I think that in the “Introduction” section, you can add some sentences about the innovation technology such as but not limited to wireless EEG technology which can help in studying the reactions of individuals in the future. So, I suggest some references which can be beneficial for this "current trends in the application of EEG in neuromarketing: a bibliometric analysis"
3.    What criteria do the authors base on to select the three different groups for experimental samples (number of questionnaires sent out and received)? As stated in the article, the author has chosen 405 copies for consumers, 52 MLS producers, and 93 MLS traders. What is the statistical significance of 405, 52, and 93 questionnaires for this study?
4.    The authors should refer to the number of received questionnaire copies in this study.
5.    The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work and its similarities and differences with their previous publications.
6.    The authors have focused on only a small city, the name "Mercado do Livramento". Are the results of the article can be generalized to other cities in Portugal due to the same culture, religion, and ethnicity?
7.    The authors need to clearly articulate the academic as well as practical implications of this study in a separate  section which can named the theoretical and practical implication of this study. I suggest a reference which can help in that issue "Neuroimaging Techniques in Advertising Research: Main Applications, Development, and Brain Regions and Processes".
8.    The authors need to clearly articulate the limitations and future works should be proposed. I suggest the reference which can help the authors to improve this section 10.1080/23311975.2021.1978620.
9.    For readers to quickly catch your contributions, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them in a clearer way in the abstract and introduction.
10.    How could/should futures studies improve the model?
If these revisions can be made in the manuscript, I believe that this study can be accepted for publication.
I wish the authors all the very best with this study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please consider the review of the paper submission to Sustainability: “Consumers, retailers, and producers’ green orientation as a marketing driver: An empirical study in an urban food market”.

We would like to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. 

We analyzed the suggestions made very carefully, which we are very grateful for, as it allowed for a better structuring of the work and a greater foundation for the options taken and the route taken, explaining in detail the options taken (ex. choice of stakeholders and characterization of the samples) and the limitations and lines of future research (with regard to, for example, the need to replicate the study elsewhere). We also opted for a greater distinction between the Conclusion and Discussion components to clarify the implications of our work in terms of limitations and lines of future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for sending me the improved version of the paper. The authors made substantial changes to earlier version and adressed to all my comments.  I would recommend to the authors to check the final text for eliminating possible typing errors.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your willingness to review the article and for all your contributions, which have improved the final work that we are now submitting.
We have carried out a professional revision of the text, by a native English teacher, which we hope will meet the expected linguistic accuracy.
Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

All of my concerns have been fully addressed in the revised version.

Author Response

Thanks for your time and relevant suggestions

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

1. Please review the paper and be sure you use English numbers, as in table 4. We do not understand if you would like to say 3,42 or 3.42. The same with table 3.  The alpha values as well and the last section. Please, review all the numbers throughout the paper.

2. Include which kind of statistical method you use. You write results and we can not understand. You can also identify the possible tools as well as methods for carrying out this type of research that can be helpful in this particular research context. Based on this discussion, you can then justify or explain the use of a particular technique that you have done.

3. In the theoretical part, you include the issue as a marketing channel, however, you do not test this part. There is a need to connect the theoretical part with the questions you use.

4. Final section, you state gender differences, which are not mentioned in the theoretical part.

5. Your paper is based on green orientation, however, there is no theoretical base on this issue.

On the whole, restructure section 2 to what you really research.