The Impact of Environmental Indicators on Consumer Purchase Decisions for Food Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article examines the impact of environmental factors on consumer choices within the food products. Conducted in Poland, this study involved a survey of consumers to assess the impact of various environmental aspects on their purchasing decisions. The key findings underscore a pronounced consumer demand for environmental accountability in the food sector, highlighting the necessity of efficient environmental management, investment in eco-friendly practices, effective waste management, and water conservation strategies. This research offers invaluable insights to industry stakeholders and policymakers, emphasizing the alignment of business practices with consumer expectations regarding sustainability. The article, however, could be enhanced by addressing the following points:
· Absence of research hypotheses: It is imperative for the article to elucidate the reasons behind the omission of research hypotheses.
· Questionnaire development: The manuscript should specify whether the questionnaire utilized in the study was derived from existing literature or constructed by the researchers. In cases where the questionnaire was adapted from prior studies, it is crucial to acknowledge these sources and include pertinent citations.
· The discussion, presently integrated within the presentation of the research results, should be distinctly delineated as an independent section to facilitate a comprehensive analysis.
· It is also recommended that the authors refine and expand the conclusion section.
· Lastly, the literature cited in the manuscript necessitates significant enhancement. An expanded review would fortify the study’s foundation, demonstrating a more extensive understanding of the prevailing research and theories. This improvement entails not merely an increase in the number of references, but also ensuring their contemporaneity, relevance, and critical integration throughout the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno comments
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and providing valuable comments and improvement suggestions. We have carefully considered each of your points and have provided a detailed point-by-point response below:
| Absence of research hypotheses | The decision to omit explicit research hypotheses was primarily driven by the exploratory nature of the study. The focus was on generating insights rather than testing predetermined hypotheses |
| Questionnaire development | The questionnaire utilized in the study was developed by the research team based on the review of relevant literature and expert consultation. We improved the first paragraph of the Materials and Methods chapter of revised manuscript to state it explicitly and provide clarity regarding the origin of the questionnaire. |
| Discussion section | Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the absence of a standalone Results discussion in our manuscript. In accordance with the publisher's guidelines and instructions for authors, we opted to integrate the discussion of results within the Results section of our manuscript. Here, we have examined the implications of our findings in light of previous research and research questions. Furthermore, we highlighted the limitations of our work and outlined future research directions. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and completeness of our manuscript, and we are grateful for your review. |
| Expansion of the conclusion | We acknowledge the need to refine and expand the conclusion section to provide a more robust summary of the key insights from the study. In the revised manuscript, we revisited the conclusions. |
| Literature | Recognizing the importance of a comprehensive literature review, we undertook enhancements to the cited literature in the manuscript. |
We appreciate the constructive feedback provided and are committed to addressing these points comprehensively in the revised version of the manuscript.
Kind regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Introduction - the author should state the time to which the research relates, the method and the result of the research in the introduction.
64 p. to clarify what those factors are, it is not enough just to state that they are numerous
65 p. you mention organic products, you have to explain the context of why you are writing about them, introduce org.proizv.in the story
101 p. what is two methodological approaches: computer-assisted explain
Figure 1 is not necessary, rather the research model, variables and direction of action of variables should be shown
125 n in ISO 14031 standard [29] and the literature reviews – list the literature that was used to create the indicator.
State the gap in the literature that initiates your research.
127 The bottom-up approach was facilitated through interviews, brainstorming, and other inclusive techniques - explain, perhaps explain what the indicators are
Step 1-3 are steps in data analysis not research, to specify it
156 The subsequent phase of the study involved Individual In-depth Interviews (IDI) with organizational representatives. Explain in detail, which organizations, how many organizations, how many respondents, how they were selected, representativeness of the sample, explain as if it were an independent research.
162 Assessing the consumer perspective is based on the results of qualitative research obtained from the CATI survey (first stage). In what sense, explain
169 psychological or physical harm to either respondents - In what sense, explain
195 The mean score for the importance of all indicators collectively was 3.68. write for how many indicators. How many indicators are finally included and how many are included in the correlation and factor analysis.
Table 3. Eigenvalues and variance in exploratory factor analysis, there is no need to show components less than 1
Explain somewhere why you opted for exploratory factor analysis
174 - 175 Factor analysis models are used to reduce a multi-element set of variables to a smaller set of factors, which, however, contain most of the information contained in the output variables and reveal hidden relationships in the analyzed data set [32, 33,34]. transfer to the part where you first mention factorial, this is how you get the impression that the part is The subsequent phase? or part of step 3?
Results discussion is missing!!!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and providing valuable comments and improvement suggestions. We have carefully considered each of your points and have provided a detailed point-by-point response below:
| Introduction - the author should state the time to which the research relates, the method and the result of the research in the introduction. | Thank you for your feedback. The introduction was revised and improved. |
| 64 p. to clarify what those factors are, it is not enough just to state that they are numerous | Thank you for pointing this out. The factors have been clarified in the subsequent part of the chapter. Factors such as: corporate social responsibility, customer knowledge and awareness, perceived risk, retailer’s commercial image, customer’s personality characteristics, social identity, product features, attitude, country of origin, perceived value, subjective norm, loyalty and perceived behavioral control. |
| 65 p. you mention organic products, you have to explain the context of why you are writing about them, introduce org.proizv.in the story | Thank you for your feedback, the context and relevance of organic products will be reviewed to provide clarity. |
| 101 p. what is two methodological approaches: computer-assisted explain | An explanation was added. |
| Figure 1 is not necessary, rather the research model, variables and direction of action of variables should be shown | Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your attention to detail and your suggestion regarding the presentation of the research model, variables and direction of action of variables. Could you please provide clarification on the specific details or format you would like to see? This will help us ensure that we address your concerns comprehensively. Thank you once again for your feedback. |
| 125 n in ISO 14031 standard [29] and the literature reviews – list the literature that was used to create the indicator. | The literature sources used for creating the indicator was added. |
| State the gap in the literature that initiates your research. | The gap in the literature motivating the research has been reviewed and articulated in the revised manuscript. |
| 127 The bottom-up approach was facilitated through interviews, brainstorming, and other inclusive techniques - explain | Thank you for pointing this out. Clarification to interviews and brainstorming was added. "Other inclusive techniques" were removed. |
| Step 1-3 are steps in data analysis not research, to specify it | We agree. The sentence: "The analysis of the responses of the 1221 completed questionnaires occurred through three steps." For clarification, we added: "Step 1 of the analysis" etc. |
| 156 The subsequent phase of the study involved Individual In-depth Interviews (IDI) with organizational representatives. Explain in detail, which organizations, how many organizations, how many respondents, how they were selected, representativeness of the sample, explain as if it were an independent research. | A description of the IDI phase was improved. |
| 162 Assessing the consumer perspective is based on the results of qualitative research obtained from the CATI survey (first stage). In what sense, explain | The consumer perspective was assessed based on the CATI survey, whereas IDIs served to look at organizational perspective and as an input to the CATI questionnaire. |
| 169 psychological or physical harm to either respondents - In what sense, explain | This means that the study found no indication that participating in or conducting the research causes any psychological or physical harm to the subjects (the interviewees) or the researchers themselves. therefore, the mental or physical well-being of participants and researchers was considered safe from possible adverse effects. |
| 195 The mean score for the importance of all indicators collectively was 3.68. write for how many indicators. How many indicators are finally included and how many are included in the correlation and factor analysis. | The number of indicators (21) as added into the sentence to clarify. 21 indicators were included in the correlation and factor analysis. |
| Table 3. Eigenvalues and variance in exploratory factor analysis, there is no need to show components less than 1 | Thank you for your feedback on Table 3 regarding the eigenvalues and variance in the exploratory factor analysis. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the Kaiser criterion and the exclusion of components less than 1. However, after careful consideration, we have decided to retain the table in its current form without removing any rows. The decision to retain all components in Table 3 was made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the results presented. Removing rows based on the Kaiser criterion could potentially lead to a loss of precision in the presentation of our findings. Maintaining the original table format was deemed necessary to provide a comprehensive overview of the data. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. |
| Explain somewhere why you opted for exploratory factor analysis | Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We appreciate your comments and would like to address your query regarding the rationale behind opting for exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis serves as a tool for reducing a complex set of variables into a more manageable set of factors while retaining the majority of information contained in the original variables. It allows us to unveil latent relationships within the dataset and provides a means for measuring and succinctly describing groups of phenomena that may not be directly observable. The primary objective of factor analysis is to identify factors that hold significant relevance for describing the analysed problem, thereby aiding in a comprehensive understanding of the underlying structure. In our study, we chose exploratory factor analysis due to its ability to uncover hidden patterns and relationships within our dataset, facilitating a nuanced exploration of the factors influencing environmental indicators affecting customers' purchase decisions. By employing this method, we aimed to gain deeper insights into the underlying constructs and dimensions, which in turn enhanced the robustness and interpretability of our findings. We trust that this clarification adequately addresses your query. |
| 174 - 175 Factor analysis models are used to reduce a multi-element set of variables to a smaller set of factors, which, however, contain most of the information contained in the output variables and reveal hidden relationships in the analyzed data set [32, 33,34]. transfer to the part where you first mention factorial, this is how you get the impression that the part is The subsequent phase? or part of step 3? | Thank you for your review and feedback on our manuscript. We would like to seek clarification regarding your comment. Could you please elaborate on your query about the transition to the part where factor analysis is mentioned? We want to ensure that we understand your concern accurately. Are you referring to the section where we introduce factor analysis as part of the methodology or to a specific phase within our analysis Your clarification will help us address your concern more effectively and ensure that our manuscript is presented clearly and comprehensively. |
| Results discussion is missing!!! |
Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the absence of a standalone Results discussion in our manuscript. In accordance with the publisher's guidelines and instructions for authors, we opted to integrate the discussion of results within the Results section of our manuscript. Here, we have examined the implications of our findings in light of previous research and research questions. Furthermore, we highlighted the limitations of our work and outlined future research directions. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and completeness of our manuscript, and we are grateful for your review. |
We appreciate the constructive feedback provided and are committed to addressing these points comprehensively in the revised version of the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Major comments
1) Food products purchase greatly depends on the product character:
Staple foods, imported products, beverages, vegetables, meat, cereals, sweet, functional food products. Each of them depends on special environmental factors (transport, wastes, intensive fertilization and pesticides utilization, water management, intensity of environmental pollution, importance for health, place of production) and certainly the products purchase will differ depending on the product. Is it possible to make a comparison of the importance of environmental factors for the purchase of each group of products?
2) Among environmental factors selenium deficiency is a risk factor for the Polish inhabitants. In this respect it seems highly valuable to evaluate the significance of this factor on the consumers’ food purchase
3) Import of food products from other countries improves the diversity of nutrients in human diet and greatly affect human immunity and health. For instance, in Russia a refusal of grain import from USA and Canada resulted in the significant Se status decrease among the population. At the same time food import is strictly connected with transport, wastes and packaging problems. In this respect, it seems interesting to reveal the consumers attitude towards imported food products
4) are there any data on the consumers purchase of functional food, such as microgreens?
5) Season greatly affect human behavior and food products purchase. Are there any data on the questionnaires differences in winter and summer, autumn and spring? In any case season should be mentioned when the work was achieved
6) It seems obvious that mass-media discussion of environmental indicators possesses the leading role in the consumers purchase in food products. Is this topic popular in mass-media? May be compared to other countries?
Minor comments
1)Line 15 ‘were tasked’ Change to ‘were asked’
2)Table 5 change comma to point: 3.89 instead of 3,89
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and providing valuable comments and improvement suggestions. We have carefully considered each of your points and have provided a detailed point-by-point response below:
|
Food products purchase greatly depends on the product character: Staple foods, imported products, beverages, vegetables, meat, cereals, sweet, functional food products. Each of them depends on special environmental factors (transport, wastes, intensive fertilization and pesticides utilization, water management, intensity of environmental pollution, importance for health, place of production) and certainly the products purchase will differ depending on the product. Is it possible to make a comparison of the importance of environmental factors for the purchase of each group of products? |
Due to the construction of the questionnaire and asking respondents generally without differentiation of each food product category, it will not be possible to make a comparison. However, it is a valid point for the opportunities for future research. It is acknowledged that the questionnaire's design may limit direct comparisons across food product categories. This limitation was duly noted for future research, allowing for more nuanced investigations into the varying environmental factors influencing different food purchases. Thank you for highlighting this aspect. |
| Among environmental factors, selenium deficiency is a risk factor for Polish inhabitants. In this respect, it seems highly valuable to evaluate the significance of this factor on consumers' food purchases. | Thank you for emphasising this aspect. Unfortunately, it was not included in the research, so it will not be possible to evaluate the significance of this factor on consumers' food purchases based on data we have. |
| Import of food products from other countries improves the diversity of nutrients in the human diet and greatly affects human immunity and health. For instance, in Russia, a refusal of grain import from the USA and Canada resulted in a significant Se status decrease among the population. At the same time, food import is strictly connected with transport, wastes, and packaging problems. In this respect, it seems interesting to reveal consumers' attitudes towards imported food products. |
Thank you for your valuable insight. Consumers' attitudes towards imported food products was not included in this research, however, it is a valuable point for possible future research. The explanation was added into the Study limitation and future research section. Thank you for drawing attention to this consideration. |
| Are there any data on consumers' purchase of functional food, such as microgreens? | Thank you for your query. We did not conduct research specifically on consumers' purchase of functional foods like microgreens. Our study centred on different objectives and did not include an analysis of consumer behaviour in this particular domain. |
| Season greatly affects human behavior and food product purchases. Are there any data on the questionnaire differences in winter and summer, autumn and spring? In any case, the season should be mentioned when the work was achieved. | The season during which the study was conducted was explicitly mentioned to contextualise the findings. The explanation was added into the Study limitation and future research section. Thank you for drawing attention to this consideration. |
| It seems obvious that mass-media discussion of environmental indicators possesses the leading role in consumers' purchase of food products. Is this topic popular in mass-media? May it be compared to other countries? | Thank you for highlighting the significance of media influence in shaping consumer behaviour. We appreciate your observation and agree that expanding the scope of our research to include multiple countries would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. The explanation was added to the Study limitation and future research section. |
| Line 15 'were tasked' Change to 'were asked' | The adjustment from 'were tasked' to 'were asked' was made to ensure clarity and accuracy. Thank you for pointing out this out. |
| Table 5 change comma to point: 3.89 instead of 3,89 | The comma in Table 5 was replaced with a decimal point to maintain consistency and clarity in reporting numerical values. Thank you for the observation. |
We appreciate the constructive feedback provided and are committed to addressing these points comprehensively in the revised version of the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I appreciate the chosen research topic and the approach you have taken. Below please find my main recommendations:
The methodology mentions the use of Literature Review, but I think it would be good to have a dedicated section for this, following which you also describe the research hypotheses for the 3 research questions.
For figure 2 I think it would be useful to mention the level of importance (5 is very important?) in the figure name.
I consider it necessary to extend the conclusions section.
I also consider it necessary to present in more detail the sets of questions or correlated variables in the annexes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and providing valuable comments and improvement suggestions. We have carefully considered each of your points and have provided a detailed point-by-point response below:
| The methodology mentions the use of Literature Review, but I think it would be good to have a dedicated section for this, following which you also describe the research hypotheses for the 3 research questions. | Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. Regarding your comment on the literature review, we acknowledge the importance of providing clarity on its role in our study. The literature review served as a step in our research process, providing insights to the development of our CATI and IDI survey questionnaires. In the revised manuscript we added a clarification, that "The questionnaires utilized in the study were developed by the research team based on the review of relevant literature and expert consultation".
Regarding the absence of explicit research hypotheses, we understand your concern. The decision to omit predefined hypotheses was made due to the exploratory nature of our study. Our primary aim was to generate insights and explore potential relationships rather than to test predetermined hypotheses. |
| For figure 2 I think it would be useful to mention the level of importance (5 is very important?) in the figure name. | We appreciate the feedback. The Figure name was updated to indicate the scale of importance "5-point Likert scale, where 1 is definitely unimportant, and 5 definitely important". |
| I consider it necessary to extend the conclusions section. | Thank you for your input. We extended the conclusions section to provide a more comprehensive summary of our findings and their implications. |
| I also consider it necessary to present in more detail the sets of questions or correlated variables in the annexes. | Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your attention to detail and your suggestion regarding the presentation of sets of questions or correlated variables. We included the correlated variables in Table 1. Could you please provide clarification on the specific details or format you would like to see in the annexes? This will help us ensure that we address your concerns comprehensively. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. |
We appreciate the constructive feedback provided and are committed to addressing these points comprehensively in the revised version of the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author accepted most of the requests. In the following, I offered to clarify some questions.
174 - 175 Factor analysis models are used to reduce a multi-element set of variables to a smaller set of factors, which, however, contain most of the information contained in the output variables and reveal hidden relationships in the analyzed data set [32, 33,34]. transfer to the part where you first mention factorial, this is how you get the impression that the part is The subsequent phase? or part of step 3? Thank you for your review and feedback on our manuscript. We would like to seek clarification regarding your comment. Could you please elaborate on your query about the transition to the part where factor analysis is mentioned? We want to ensure that we understand your concern accurately. Are you referring to the section where we introduce factor analysis as part of the methodology or to a specific phase within our analysis Your clarification will help us address your concern more effectively and ensure that our manuscript is presented clearly and comprehensively.
Yes, I think the explanation of the factorial should be in the continuation of the sentence:
Step 3 of the analysis. The exploratory factor analysis aimed to identify and eval- 183 uate key environmental indicators influencing individual consumers' food pur- 184 chasing.
Figure 1 is not necessary, rather the research model, variables and direction of action of variables should be shown
Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your attention to detail and your suggestion regarding the presentation of the research model, variables and direction of action of variables. Could you please provide clarification on the specific details or format you would like to see? This will help us ensure that we address your concerns comprehensively. Thank you once again for your feedback.
I was of the opinion that it was superfluous since everything was explained in the text. Instead, it would be more useful if you specified the research model. You decide what to do.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback and clarification. We appreciate your input.
Regarding the suggestion to relocate the explanation of the Factor Analysis to Step 3, we have considered your advice and have decided to implement this adjustment as per your recommendation. We agree that this alteration will enhance the overall fluidity of the paper.
With regards to Figure 1, while we agree that all information was detailed in the text, we have chosen to retain the figure. We believe that visual aids serve to complement the text and facilitate understanding of the research plan. However, in light of your feedback, we have enhanced Figure 1 by incorporating steps of analysis, thus providing a more comprehensive overview.
Once again, thank you for your valuable insights, which have undoubtedly contributed to our work.
Warm regards,
Authors
