Investigating Factors Affecting the Purchase Intention in Petroleum Stations Implementing Sustainable Practices: A Pro-Environmental Behavior Approach with a Consideration of Sustainable Initiatives Knowledge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article constitutes a very valuable contribution to research on sustainable development and consumer behaviors. The article has been prepared based on a rich literature review and original research. Both the theoretical and empirical parts of the work are of the highest scientific standard. The authors used advanced statistical methods, such as structural equation modeling using the partial least squares method (PLS-SEM). The research results demonstrate the impact of economic factors and knowledge of sustainable development on consumers' purchase intentions. The research findings are presented in an understandable manner. The article has practical applications; the results of the analysis can be used by companies in the oil market for making managerial decisions regarding the implementation of sustainable development practices.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback regarding our manuscript. The final paper is ready for publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract Section Feedback:

The abstract appropriately addresses the objective of the study, methodology, findings and implications. I recommend that you improve the abstract by adding the theoretical contributions (already alluded to in the introduction) of the study findings, if any.

Introduction Section Feedback:

The introduction has an appropriate flow. To improve the introduction, address the following:

·         Page 2, “…industry heads’ lack of understanding how environmentally inclined sustainable 50 practices can affect profitability.”  Is this part of the statement from citation (3)? If not, add a reference to it.

·        “Although these developments and trends improved business activities, the increasing life dynamics…” This statement is vague/ ambiguous. What was the intended meaning? What’s the nature of these life dynamics?

·        “Hence sustainability has become one of the most sought- 62 after preferences of consumers in purchasing goods, services, or even going to places such 63 as petroleum stations.” Add citation

·        Thus, a rise in pressure of doing innovative solutions such as sustainability 72 practices to attain this success had been a struggle. This statement needs revision (grammatical and contextual).

Literature Review

The theoretical framework supports the study appropriately.

·       Include the source of the framework in the figure 1 caption, despite mentioning it in the main text.

·   The hypotheses are clear, though developed based on significant and insignificant positive relationships; the summarized conclusion on the abstract does not indicate a positive/negative relationship, found by the study.

·     In the case of independent variables (discussed), Make a general mention of how the economic factors were selected.

Methodology Feedback:

·       The study observed the ethical pre-conditions of studies with human participants.

·       The sample selection criteria have been specified. Though, it is not clear the level of consideration given to the three sub-groups (drivers, passengers and walk-ins)

·    The social platforms where the questionnaires were distributed are not mentioned. What are the potential biases? How does this limit the study?

·       The reliability and validity tests were conducted to underscore quality.

Results and Discussion:

●      The study findings are clearly articulated, discussed in the context of literature and within the limitations. The paper needs additional recent literature to support the discussed results, especially because ethe discussions are on the evolving issues on sustainability practices and purchase intentions, as pre-empted in the introduction section.

Overall Feedback:

Thank you for your paper, the topic is appropriate and relevant. The key arguments under discussion of findings should be anchored on more on current research.

Overall, the article is simply written and easy to understand.

Citation and References:

The references are relevant. More literature (2018-date) should be added.

Author Response

Abstract Section Feedback:

1. The abstract appropriately addresses the objective of the study, methodology, findings, and implications. I recommend that you improve the abstract by adding the theoretical contributions (already alluded to in the introduction) of the study findings, if any.

Response: Included a short description of the study’s theoretical contribution in the abstract as follows:

The results of this study will add value to the potential increase in PEPB understanding and consumer behavior

Introduction Section Feedback:

The introduction has an appropriate flow. To improve the introduction, address the following:

2. “…industry heads’ lack of understanding how environmentally inclined sustainable 50 practices can affect profitability.”  Is this part of the statement from citation (3)? If not, add a reference to it.

Response: Correctly placed the reference citation as follows:

However, some companies, such as petroleum stations, are hesitant to implement sustainability practices due to the perception of negative financial impacts and industry heads’ lack of understanding of how environmentally inclined sustainable practices can affect profitability [3].

3. “Although these developments and trends improved business activities, the increasing life dynamics…” This statement is vague/ ambiguous. What was the intended meaning? What’s the nature of these life dynamics?

Response: Changed the phrase into a simple and understandable phrase as follows:

the increase in adapting to different circumstances

4. “Hence sustainability has become one of the most sought-after preferences of consumers in purchasing goods, services, or even going to places such as petroleum stations.” Add citation

Response: Revised the sentence as follows with a citation:

Hence sustainability has become one of the most sought-after preferences of consumers in purchasing goods, services, or even going to places [5] such as petroleum stations.

5. Thus, a rise in pressure to develop innovative solutions such as sustainability practices to attain this success has been a struggle. This statement needs revision (grammatical and contextual).

Response: Revised the sentence as follows:

Thus, it makes companies pressured to do innovative solutions such as sustainability practices to gain this stand in the market.

Literature Review Feedback:

6. The theoretical framework supports the study appropriately.
7. Include the source of the framework in the Figure 1 caption, despite mentioning it in the main text.

Response: Included the framework source in Figure 1 caption.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework based on the PEPB extended model theory

8. The hypotheses are clear, though developed based on significant and insignificant positive relationships; the summarized conclusion in the abstract does not indicate a positive/negative relationship, found by the study.

Response: In the abstract, the positive relationship between variables found by the study is as follows:

The findings showed a positive relationship between variables and revealed that economic concern, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, economic factors, and sustainable knowledge significantly influenced the customers’ intention to purchase goods and services from a petrol station adopting sustainability practices while attitude was found to have no direct significant impact on customers’ intention.  

9. In the case of independent variables (discussed), Make a general mention of how the economic factors were selected.

Response: The economic factors were selected by the authors empirically and based on most known practices in the industry. This was also included as part of the study’s limitation.

Methodology Feedback:

10. The study observed the ethical pre-conditions of studies with human participants.
11. The sample selection criteria have been specified. However, it is not clear the level of consideration given to the three sub-groups (drivers, passengers, and walk-ins)

Response: The sub-groups were only included in the questionnaire to validate whether the participants have been frequent visitors of a petrol station. It was not intended to be part of the current study to analyze the result based on cluster. Although, the researchers acknowledge that this can be considered for further exploration of the research.

12. The social platforms where the questionnaires were distributed are not mentioned. What are the potential biases? How does this limit the study?

Response: The questionnaires were distributed online through social media platforms such as Facebook. The research utilized the use of Google Forms in distributing the questionnaire. One potential bias of this method is that it limits the respondents to those who are usually online than others. On this note, the researchers believe that this feedback is highly important. Thus, it was decided to include this in the limitation of the study as follows:

Fourth, the survey was done online limiting the respondents favorably to those who are usually online. Thus, it can be considered in similar future research to consider physical survey distribution within petrol station vicinity or goers.

13. The reliability and validity tests were conducted to underscore quality.

Results and Discussion Feedback:

14. The study findings are clearly articulated and discussed in the context of literature and within the limitations. The paper needs additional recent literature to support the discussed results, especially because the discussions are on the evolving issues of sustainability practices and purchase intentions, as pre-empted in the introduction section.

Response: The authors acknowledge and agree that the feedback is critically important to strengthen the paper’s quality. However, it was also pointed out in the literature that there is limited valuable research on similar sustainability practices and purchase intent. Most research was discussed individually and focused on other areas of sustainability practices such as corporate governance and CSR.

Overall Feedback:

15. Thank you for your paper, the topic is appropriate and relevant. The key arguments under discussion of findings should be anchored on more current research.

Response: The authors acknowledge and agree that the feedback is critically important to strengthen the paper’s novelty. However, it was also pointed out in the literature that there is limited valuable research on similar sustainability practices and purchase intent. The most valuable research found was in the year 2012-2019 and particularly no other similar research is available. This was also mentioned in the introduction despite the number of available studies, only a few were selected by the researchers that were deemed more relevant and appropriate for the research.

16. Overall, the article is simply written and easy to understand.

Citation and References:

17. The references are relevant. More literature (2018-date) should be added.

Response: The authors acknowledge and agree that the feedback is critically important to strengthen the paper’s novelty. However, it was also pointed out in the literature that there is limited valuable research on similar sustainability practices and purchase intent, and believed that more than 100 references would be enough to validate the research’s focus.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is soundly designed and generates some meaningful findings based on the analysis of the model path. Here are some of the comments: 

1. The study has done a thorough preparation in laying down the foundation of the study and the generation of the conceptual framework. 

2. The overall reporting of the research design, data collection process and the finding is clear. I hope the study can write clearly whether the sampling method is the same for both the pilot study and the actual test. Meanwhile, the study reports some intriguing findings which may not be the same as previous studies, but there is no further explantion about why they are different. 

3. I suggest the study further compares the difference between this extended model and other extended models to highlight the innovative point of the study. 

 

Author Response

The study is soundly designed and generates some meaningful findings based on the analysis of the model path. Here are some of the comments: 

1. The study has done a thorough preparation in laying down the foundation of the study and the generation of the conceptual framework. 
2. The overall reporting of the research design, data collection process and findings is clear. I hope the study can write clearly whether the sampling method is the same for both the pilot study and the actual test. Meanwhile, the study reports some intriguing findings that may not be the same as previous studies, but there is no further explanation about why they are different. 

Response: The pilot test considered 10% (Connelly, 2008) (40 participants) of the study’s sample to verify the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. This was also included in the revised manuscript as follows:

 

The pilot test considered 10% [89] (40 participants) of the study’s sample to verify the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.

3. I suggest the study further compares the difference between this extended model and other extended models to highlight the innovative point of the study. 

Response: The authors acknowledge the importance of highlighting the innovative point of the study as recommended thus is included in the implications of the study as follows:

Further, the study differentiates from other similar extended models that utilized PEPB such studies of [79, 104, 105, 106, 107] that aside from the environmental effects, customers are also concerned about the economic benefits of pro-environmental behavior which also leads them to either practice the intent behavior, choose a service, or buy goods.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper provides an important contribution to the understanding of factors influencing consumers' intent to purchase from gas stations implementing sustainability practices. The topic is highly relevant given the increasing focus on environmental concerns. However, there are several limitations that could be addressed to improve the quality of this paper.

 

The choice of PLS-SEM for hypothesis testing should be justified. PLS-SEM is more suitable for prediction and explanation rather than confirmation. Since the authors aim to test hypotheses derived from an existing theory (PEPB), a covariance-based SEM may have been more appropriate. If authors believe PLS-SEM is the optimal choice for this study, more justification, validation, and comparison may be provided.

 

The sample size of 400 participants may have been insufficient considering the complexity of the model, the number of indicators, and the inclusion of higher-order factors. PLS-SEM typically requires larger sample sizes based on recommendations. Furthermore, the restriction of the sample to a single geographic region limits the generalizability of the findings. Strengthening external validity could be achieved by broadening recruitment across multiple sites.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language used in the paper appears to be of good quality. However, it is advisable to conduct a thorough proofreading and editing process to identify and correct any errors or inconsistencies. This will ensure precision, clarity, and consistency throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Overall, this paper provides an important contribution to the understanding of factors influencing consumers' intent to purchase from gas stations implementing sustainability practices. The topic is highly relevant given the increasing focus on environmental concerns. However, there are several limitations that could be addressed to improve the quality of this paper.

1. The choice of PLS-SEM for hypothesis testing should be justified. PLS-SEM is more suitable for prediction and explanation rather than confirmation. Since the authors aim to test hypotheses derived from an existing theory (PEPB), a covariance-based SEM may have been more appropriate. If authors believe PLS-SEM is the optimal choice for this study, more justification, validation, and comparison may be provided.

Response: The authors acknowledge the feedback regarding the method used. The authors believe that PLS-SEM is the optimal choice given that the research is exploratory and only an extension of an existing theory as backed by Hair et al. (2011). Given also the sample size, PLS-SEM was more suited for the accounted number rather than CB-SEM producing a high level of statistical power (Hair et al., 2017). In addition, the data set was not normally distributed where PLS-SEM ideally fit since it does not assume normally distributed data hence the fit tests also indicated in the research focused on the construct reliability and validity tests. Similar studies such as German et al. (2022) and Gumasing et al. (2023) focusing on utilizing PEPB models also used PLS-SEM in analyzing data. Both studies showed satisfactory results coming from PLS-SEM hence was considered as a factor in this study to use a similar approach. This was also included in the revised manuscript as follows:

Given the exploratory nature of the research and based as an extension of an existing theory [84], PLS-SEM was fit to be used in the analysis. The sample size was also considered whereas PLS-SEM was best suited to producing a high level of statistical power. [85]. In addition, the data set was not normally distributed hence PLS-SEM seemed fit since it does not assume normally distributed data. Similar studies such as [79, 86] that focus on extended PEPB models also employed PLS-SEM in analyzing data. Both studies showed satisfactory results hence was considered as a factor in this study to use a similar approach.

2. The sample size of 400 participants may have been insufficient considering the complexity of the model, the number of indicators, and the inclusion of higher-order factors. PLS-SEM typically requires larger sample sizes based on recommendations. Furthermore, the restriction of the sample to a single geographic region limits the generalizability of the findings. Strengthening external validity could be achieved by broadening recruitment across multiple sites.

Response: The sample size was computed based on the total population of Filipinos based on the national census since the current area of the research focus was Filipinos residing in the Philippines. It was also recommended in the study to consider expanding the research globally to further improve the analysis of the data and possibly provide comparisons.

3. The English language used in the paper appears to be of good quality. However, it is advisable to conduct a thorough proofreading and editing process to identify and correct any errors or inconsistencies. This will ensure precision, clarity, and consistency throughout the manuscript.

Response: The authors appreciate this feedback and revisited the manuscript for further grammar and composition error fixes.