Green Buying Behaviour: An Integrated Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors on their interest in the subject. The analysis and tabulation provide knowledge in a way that is accessible and comprehensible not only to specialists in the field. The proposed model is interesting, but its quality should be improved (unreadable // incomplete text in some cells). There are also minor editing errors in the bibliography (25, 40).

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their dedication and time spent reviewing our work. We have addressed all comments.

Thank you very much.

1. The proposed model is interesting, but its quality should be improved (unreadable // incomplete text in some cells).

 

A/ We have edited figures 1 and 2, making the denominations and values visible.

 

2. There are also minor editing errors in the bibliography (25, 40).

 

A/ We have once again sent the entire corrected text for professional English language review and correction to a company in London.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Dear Authors

I have carefully reviewed your research paper titled ““Green Buying Behaviour: An Integrated Model“, that was submitted to Sustainability journal. I appreciate the effort and time you invested in conducting this study and preparing the manuscript for publication.

 

The research topic is interesting and updated.

However, after a thorough evaluation have found some points that needs your attention as below:

This paragraph “The new consumer trends show that consumers are becoming increasingly demanding of brands regarding their impact on the environment and global sustainability. Even though brands are becoming more involved with the Sustainable Development Goals 59 (SDGs), recent studies indicate that just over 60% of them link some of their involvement 60 to a false belief of sustainability, known as ‘greenwashing’. This leads to consumers feeling confused about the actual responsibility that brands have towards the SDGs.”  Need strong reference as the paper is bult upon this argument.

-          The first heading of methodology should be previous studies.

-          Figure 1 is not clear, please redraw it.

-          Figure 2 is not clear, please report the figure as an output from PLS-SEM

-          Please report the results in a table showing the proposed hypotheses, related t value, p value and path coefficients, and standard error

-          A discussion section is missing and the allocation of the study results with previous studies.

-          Practical and theoretical implications are missing.

-          limitation and further study opportunities are missing.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their dedication and time spent reviewing our work. We have addressed all comments in accordance with the limitations of our work. Thank you very much.

1. This paragraph “The new consumer trends show that consumers are becoming increasingly demanding of brands regarding their impact on the environment and global sustainability. Even though brands are becoming more involved with the Sustainable Development Goals 59 (SDGs), recent studies indicate that just over 60% of them link some of their involvement 60 to a false belief of sustainability, known as ‘greenwashing’. This leads to consumers feeling confused about the actual responsibility that brands have towards the SDGs.” Need strong reference as the paper is bult upon this argument.

A/ We have reorganised, structured, and completed the entire introduction, making clear the gap and the reasons for this study.

2. The first heading of methodology should be previous studies.

A/ We have included the literature review in the definition of the hypotheses by reorganising sections 2 and 3.

3. Figure 1 is not clear, please redraw it.

A/ We have edited figures 1 and 2, making the denominations and values visible.

4. Figure 2 is not clear, please report the figure as an output from PLS-SEM

A/ We have edited figures 1 and 2, making the denominations and values visible.

5. Please report the results in a table showing the proposed hypotheses, related t value,

p value and path coefficients, and standard error

A/ We have added a table that summarises the validity of the hypotheses (table 7).

6. A discussion section is missing and the allocation of the study results with previous studies.

A/ We have restructured and completed the discussion section.

 

7. Practical and theoretical implications are missing.

A/ We have restructured and completed the conclusions section.

8. limitation and further study opportunities are
9. A/ We have completed the limitation section.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for providing this manuscript on "Green Buying Behaviour: An Integrated Model". The topic of this paper is interesting. However, some points need to be considered to enhance the manuscript's comprehensibility.

1. The introduction section needs improvement. It lacks a clear statement of the study's motivation and fails to effectively demonstrate research gaps. Hence, it's strongly advised that the authors clarify these gaps and articulate the study's motivation more explicitly.

2. Please include a section of literature review and hypothesis development. Likewise, sections 2 and 3 need to be reorganized and integrated into the aforementioned literature review section.

3. Table 2 concerning Literature Review should be presented in textual form and included within the literature review and hypothesis development section.

4. Please provide justification for the selected hypotheses (lines 138-167).

5. In Figure 1, please ensure that the assumptions are clearly outlined.

6. In the sample and data collection subsection, please include a table detailing the characteristics of the respondents, organized by country (Spain and Colombia). Furthermore, additional details regarding the used sampling technique are required.

7. Lines 189-206 should be incorporated as a distinct subsection focusing on the data analysis technique rather than being included under measures.

8. Tables 4 and 5 are incomplete and need to be filled in.

9. Table 6 should be incorporated into the subsection related to assessment of the structural model.

10. I suggest that the authors include other relevant criteria for assessing the structural model, such as predictive relevance and model fit.

11.  Please include a table summarizing the results of hypothesis testing (β-value, T statistics, p-Value). 

12.  Please add the mediation/indirect coefficients.

13. The discussion section in its current form requires additional elaboration. I encourage the authors to explore the theoretical and practical implications of this study.

Good luck in improving your paper!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some revision of English language is required.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their dedication and time spent reviewing our work. We have addressed all comments in accordance with the limitations of our work. Thank you very much.

 

1. The introduction section needs improvement. It lacks a clear statement of the study's motivation and fails to effectively demonstrate research gaps. Hence, it's strongly advised that the authors clarify these gaps and articulate the study's motivation more explicitly.

A/ We have reorganised, structured, and completed the entire introduction, making clear the gap and the reasons for this study.

2. Please include a section of literature review and hypothesis development. Likewise, sections 2 and 3 need to be reorganized and integrated into the aforementioned literature review section.

A/ We have included the literature review in the definition of the hypotheses by reorganising sections 2 and 3.

3. Table 2 concerning Literature Review should be presented in textual form and included within the literature review and hypothesis development section.

A/ We have included the literature review in the definition of the hypotheses by reorganising sections 2 and 3.

4. Please provide justification for the selected hypotheses (lines 138-167).

A/ We have included the literature review in the definition of the hypotheses by reorganising sections 2 and 3.

5. In Figure 1, please ensure that the assumptions are clearly outlined.

A/ We have edited figures 1 and 2, making the denominations and values visible.

6. In the sample and data collection subsection, please include a table detailing the characteristics of the respondents, organized by country (Spain and Colombia). Furthermore, additional details regarding the used sampling technique are required.

A/ We have detailed how the sample was selected and expanded the description of the sample (table 2).

7. Lines 189-206 should be incorporated as a distinct subsection focusing on the data analysis technique rather than being included under measures.

A/ We believe that subsections 4.1 Reliability and validity of the measurement tool and 4.2 Assessment of the structural model are clear.

8. Tables 4 and 5 are incomplete and need to be filled in.

A/ These tables are cross matrices and the diagonal is the reference for analysis, therefore they do not require duplication of name in the columns.

9. Table 6 should be incorporated into the subsection related to assessment of the structural model.

A/ Table 6 is cited in that subsection.

10. I suggest that the authors include other relevant criteria for assessing the structural model, such as predictive relevance and model fit.

A/ Other tests of the model are not included due to its exploratory and not confirmatory nature.

11. Please include a table summarizing the results of hypothesis testing (β-value, T statistics, p-Value).

A/ We have added a table that summarises the validity of the hypotheses (table 7).

12. Please add the mediation/indirect coefficients.

A/ Our objective was not to analyse mediation or indirect effects, given that these in-depth relationships are not analysed in our study.

13. The discussion section in its current form requires additional elaboration. I encourage the authors to explore the theoretical and practical implications of this study.

A/ We have restructured and completed the discussion section and the conclusions section.

14. Some revision of English language is required.

A/ We have once again sent the entire corrected text for professional English language review and correction to a company in London.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Table 1 and Table 2 are not clear please revise

I have asked to report the model as an output of PLS-SEM, but you did not include it; please justify.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your valuable comments on our work, regarding your suggestion to review tables 1 and 2, we have not noticed any problems. Regarding the results of the model generated by the PLS program, we do not consider it appropriate to present it in the document due to the multiplicity of constructs among other details that are better presented with the word graph.
Thank you very much for your understanding.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated my comments and recommendations, resulting in a comprehensive response that significantly enhances the paper.

Author Response

Dear Editor.

We appreciate your valuable comments in improving our paper.