Unraveling Green Marketing and Greenwashing: A Systematic Review in the Context of the Fashion and Textiles Industry

Reviewer #

Comment

Response

Action

1

The description of the relevance of this work is delayed, there are no mandatory elements of this section. It is recommended to rewrite this section using the formula: “relevance – purpose – research methods – results obtained – practical significance”

The authors have incorporated the feedback, accepting the suggested comment, and subsequently reworked the section.

Section has been rewritten.

Introduction. The description of the relevance of this study is also lengthy. It is recommended to supplement the section with a goal, objectives, object, describe the research hypothesis, methodology, results achieved (briefly), and the structure of the article

The authors have incorporated the feedback, accepting the suggested comments, and subsequently reworked the section. The revised introduction now comprises the relevance, purpose, and methodology of the research paper, while clearly defining the scope of the study.

Introduction section has been rewritten.

Background. It is recommended to expand this section by reviewing the global experience of green marketing and greenwashing not only in the field of fashion and textiles, but also general practice

The authors have revised the introduction section to articulate the purpose and scope of the paper. The background information seamlessly follows from the introduction and has been streamlined specifically for the fashion industry, maintaining a focused approach. While acknowledging that green marketing is a widespread practice in various enterprises, the authors have incorporated additional language to emphasise its general applicability.

Background section has been revised.

It is necessary to describe practical recommendations that the real sector of the economy can use for its development based on the results of the conducted research

Businesses are the backbone of any economy. Governance is a necessary precondition and consumerism is the driving force of any economy. Considering the same, recommendations have been rephrased with a deliberate focus on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile industry. These revised recommendations derive directly from the findings presented in the paper, aiming to proactively address and potentially reduce the occurrence of greenwashing within the F&T sector. This has provided a foundation for the conclusion leading to the finalisation of the paper. in the conclusion, authors have summarised key insights, reiterated the significance of the recommendations, and suggested potential areas for future research and actions.

Recommendation section has been rewritten and conclusion has been revised based on the recommendations.

Reviewer #

Comment

Response

Action

2

I would suggest not to duplicate the presented results and leave them only in one place (or only Table 1 or only Figure 2).

The authors have accepted the suggested comment and removed Figure 2.

Figure 2 has been removed.

In the development of the text, it is recommended to broadly define greenwashing, not only in the social context. In the same way, include information regarding how this phenomenon affects the marine and terrestrial ecosystem, as well as the pollution it produces.

The authors appreciate the valuable recommendation to broaden the definition of greenwashing and delve into its impact on marine and terrestrial ecosystems, along with associated pollution. However, the paper deliberately maintains a focused exploration of greenwashing as an unsustainable practice in the fashion and textile industry. The emphasis lies on its repercussions for consumers, generating mistrust towards businesses and occasionally implicating governance. While authors acknowledge the environmental footprint is the byproducts of the unsustainable production process, we have intentionally avoided a detailed discussion to keep the paper centered on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile sector.

Manuscript has been revised to ensure clearly stating the scope and direction of the paper.

In the recommendations that the text suggests to mitigate the effect of greenwashing, it is proposed that the author base these recommendations on a broader context, which includes pollution to the environment and various habitats.

Recommendations have been rephrased with a deliberate focus on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile industry. These revised recommendations derive directly from the findings presented in the paper, aiming to proactively address and potentially reduce the occurrence of greenwashing within the F&T sector. While authors acknowledge the environmental footprint is the byproducts of the unsustainable production process, we have intentionally avoided a detailed discussion to keep the paper centered on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile sector.

Recommendation section has been rewritten based on the revisions made in the manuscript.

The references used in this article are confusing and have no relevance to the topic to be addressed, as well as the sources of information are imprecise regarding the topic of interest. It is recommended to seek information from scientific sources that support the topic discussed in this article.

Some of the references have been changed in relevance to the revised manuscript. The authors employed the PRISMA methodology, which incorporates a blend of scientific (70%) and non-scientific (30%) sources in the cited literature. This approach aims to provide a comprehensive perspective on the topic. The paper is substantiated with evidence from government and legal databases to ensure robustness. Given the practical focus on real-world businesses, industry reports, news and reputable media outlets such as Business of Fashion have been utilised extensively to gather relevant data, ultimately strengthening the overall argument presented in the paper.

References have been revised with an updated methodology section maintaining a blend of scientific (70%) and non-scientific (30%) sources in the cited literature.

On the other hand, it is suggested to establish a homogeneous format when using references, where all the bibliography used has the same fields of information.

References have been edited using MDPI Chicago style of referencing with the help of Endnote software as recommended by the journal guidelines.

References have been edited.

Reviewer #

Comment

Response

Action

3

The authors mention, through various contexts, the impact produced by the greenwashing generated by the fashion industry. As well as recommendations to reduce this problem caused by this type of industry.  In general, the content of the manuscript is not within the objectives sought by the journal. It is suggested that the text be justified under the guidelines established within the publication.

The authors appreciate the feedback and have taken into account the scope of the journal, specifically its commitment to cross-disciplinary research in the context of sustainability. The submitted paper addresses the subject of unsustainable practices, focusing on greenwashing in the fashion and textile industry, a topic relevant to the journal's emphasis on the subject area: unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. The deliberate focus on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile sector aligns with the interdisciplinary nature of the journal. The revised manuscript will ensure clear justification within the specified guidelines while contributing valuable insights to the discourse on sustainable practices.

Manuscript has been revised to ensure clear justification within the specified guidelines, adhering to the scope of the journal.

In the development of the text, it is recommended to broadly define greenwashing, not only in the social context. In the same way, include information regarding how this phenomenon affects the marine and terrestrial ecosystem, as well as the pollution it produces.

The authors appreciate the valuable recommendation to broaden the definition of greenwashing and delve into its impact on marine and terrestrial ecosystems, along with associated pollution. However, the paper deliberately maintains a focused exploration of greenwashing as an unsustainable practice in the fashion and textile industry. The emphasis lies on its repercussions for consumers, generating mistrust towards businesses and occasionally implicating governance. While authors acknowledge the environmental footprint is the byproducts of the unsustainable production process, we have intentionally avoided a detailed discussion to keep the paper centered on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile sector.

Manuscript has been revised to ensure clearly stating the scope and direction of the paper.

In the recommendations that the text suggests to mitigate the effect of greenwashing, it is proposed that the author base these recommendations on a broader context, which includes pollution to the environment and various habitats.

Recommendations have been rephrased with a deliberate focus on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile industry. These revised recommendations derive directly from the findings presented in the paper, aiming to proactively address and potentially reduce the occurrence of greenwashing within the F&T sector. While authors acknowledge the environmental footprint is the byproducts of the unsustainable production process, we have intentionally avoided a detailed discussion to keep the paper centered on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile sector.

Recommendation section has been rewritten based on the revisions made in the manuscript.

The references used in this article are confusing and have no relevance to the topic to be addressed, as well as the sources of information are imprecise regarding the topic of interest. It is recommended to seek information from scientific sources that support the topic discussed in this article.

Some of the references have been changed in relevance to the revised manuscript. The authors employed the PRISMA methodology, which incorporates a blend of scientific (70%) and non-scientific (30%) sources in the cited literature. This approach aims to provide a comprehensive perspective on the topic. The paper is substantiated with evidence from government and legal databases to ensure robustness. Given the practical focus on real-world businesses, industry reports, news and reputable media outlets such as Business of Fashion have been utilised extensively to gather relevant data, ultimately strengthening the overall argument presented in the paper.

References have been revised with an updated methodology section maintaining a blend of scientific (70%) and non-scientific (30%) sources in the cited literature.

On the other hand, it is suggested to establish a homogeneous format when using references, where all the bibliography used has the same fields of information.

References have been edited using MDPI Chicago style of referencing with the help of Endnote software as recommended by the journal guidelines.

References have been edited.

Reviewer

Comment

Response

Action

4

Include references in the value chain topics, to justify the argument you describe (line 52).

The section has undergone substantial revision in response to the reviewer's comment, leading to a significant alteration in its content. Line 52, value chain, has been changed in the section.

The section has been rewritten.

It is recommended not to include figure 1 in the introduction.

The authors have accepted the suggested comment and removed Figure 1.

Figure 1 has been removed.

Where percentages are mentioned change the order, the percentage is of something

The methodology section containing percentages has been revised based on the comment.

The methodology section containing percentages has been edited based on the comment.

In the materials and methods, the second paragraph is very long, and it is suggested to classify the research

The authors have accepted the suggested comment and rewritten the section.

The methodology section has been edited based on the comment.

In the discussion section I would call it results

Discussion has been changed to results.

Discussion has been changed to results.

In the case of figure 6, figure 7 and figure 8 they do not include the source of each of them

Figures 6, 7 and 8 are original work by one of the authors of the paper and are derived from the results section which include referenced analysis. The caption for the figures has been edited to disclose the same.

The caption for the figures has been edited to disclose the source of the images.

The recommendations are very severe and depend on the author's criteria, but in my opinion, without a mathematical study, the recommendations are not completely valid. Therefore, it is suggested that you change the wording

Businesses are the backbone of any economy. Governance is a necessary precondition and consumerism is the driving force of any economy. Considering the same, recommendations have been rephrased with a deliberate focus on governing bodies, businesses, and consumers within the fashion and textile industry. These revised recommendations derive directly from the findings presented in the paper, aiming to proactively address and potentially reduce the occurrence of greenwashing within the F&T sector.

Recommendation section has been rewritten based on the analysis presented in the results section.

Include job limitations

Authors request further explanation regarding this comment.

Authors request further explanation regarding this comment.

It is recommended to make a table of the analysis of the authors mentioned in the study, which is placed as an appendix, and which facilitates the continuity of the work of other authors

The authors deeply appreciate the valuable comment and feedback received, and they intend to incorporate this input into their future systematic literature reviews. However, the creation of a comprehensive table listing the 103 cited sources, and analysis of the authors of these cited sources, as suggested, poses a time-intensive challenge. Due to the pressing time constraints for the current publication, the authors regret that they are unable to undertake this task. It's important to note that the authors have diligently followed the PRISMA methodology, ensuring a rigorous process in identifying relevant sources in the field scoping the paper. This method includes detailing the time span, nature of sources, and geographical locations of the cited research, contributing to the robustness of the paper.

Reduce the similarity, should be less than 5%

Manuscript has been revised to reduce the similarity.

Manuscript has been revised.

Consistency of references (style and details)

References have been edited using MDPI Chicago style of referencing with the help of Endnote software as recommended by the journal guidelines.

References have been edited.