Exploring the Mediating Effects of the Theory of Planned Behavior on the Relationships between Environmental Awareness, Green Advocacy, and Green Self-Efficacy on the Green Word-of-Mouth Intention

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Kindly see report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your previous professional and detailed comments, which have greatly benefited me in my research work. After making major revisions to the manuscript, I have made every effort to address the comments you raised. The following points outline my response, and I would appreciate it if you could take the time to provide further feedback if there are any areas that still need improvement.

1. The original text has been extensively revised in terms of content and research framework. The aforementioned issues have also been restated.
2. The definitions and relationships of each variable have been restated, and the contributions to the research have been defined.
3. Recent literature has been added to the introduction and literature review section. In the revised submission of the research paper, the number of references from 2020 onwards has been increased to 30, aligning with the updated research trends.
4. The research variables and research objectives have been restated with clear relationships.
5. The content of the resubmission adopts the Theory of Planned Behavior, as it is the most widely accepted theoretical model in the literature on individual adoption behavior.
6. The questionnaire design and distribution method, sampling plan, and data collection process in the research methodology have all been restated and presented in a data-driven manner to convey relevant information.
7. After modifying the research framework, as the paths of the three variables in the framework do not a closed loop form, this study still uses hierarchical regression analysis to statistically validate the mediating variable.
8. After the revision, the conclusion and recommendation paragraphs have been modified to state the theoretical and practical contributions, as well as the research limitations and future research directions, respectively. This has increased the clarity of the content.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for submitting your research work to Sustainability. I appreciate the work of the authors however, certain flaws do exist in the manuscript and need to be addressed prior to publication:

1.       The topic is current and extensive researches are being carried out in this field. The authors have failed to justify the novelty of their work. Authors need to identify gap in literature and the need to fill the gap.

2.       Title of the paper does not make a sense. When you use “mediating role” your title should reflect both the variables (IV & DV) whom relationship is being mediated.

3.       Abstract should reflect methodology and the implications of the study briefly.

4.       Since the topic is current but outdated literature is used. 7 papers out of 51 references are current the latest. All the outdated literature review needs to be replaced with the current one.

5.       The manuscript lacks theoretical basis. The authors need to incorporate pertinent theory(ies) to establish a theoretical ground for the study.  

6.       In the figure 1 one arrow is misplaced.

7.       Sampling is flawed. Firstly, for hypotheses testing (using inferential statistics) the first assumption is random sampling. So there is a violation of this assumption. Secondly, it is not realistic to collect data from 450 respondents selected through snowball sampling. Thirdly, snowball sampling is followed when respondents are unknown. I don’t think customers were unknown in this case.

8.       As these variables are closely related, for example, environmental awareness and environmental knowledge, there is a possibility of high autocorrelation and multicollinearity. Authors should check for autocorrelation, multicollinearity and common method bias.

9.       Please explain how and under what principles the borrowed scales were modified to fit them to the needs of your research. What were the needs of your research?  What additions and deductions were made to each scale?

10.   Create a section on discussion to discuss the finding in the lights of related literature and theoretical underpinnings.

11.   Create a section on theoretical and managerial implications of the study.

12.   Create a separate section on limitations and future research prospects.

13.   English language editing is needed.

 

Note: the paper needs a major rewrite

 

English language Editing is needed

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your previous comments on the submitted content, which have greatly benefited for my research work. I have now completed the major revision. Below are your comments and my corresponding responses.

1.The topic is current and extensive researches are being carried out in this field. The authors have failed to justify the novelty of their work. Authors need to identify gap in literature and the need to fill the gap.

After extensively revising the title and research framework, recent literature on each variable was referenced to enhance the research significance and address academic gaps that have not been discussed.

2.Title of the paper does not make a sense. When you use “mediating role” your title should reflect both the variables (IV & DV) whom relationship is being mediated.

The research topic has been revised accordingly and now addresses the important feedback point.

3.Abstract should reflect methodology and the implications of the study briefly.

The abstract has been rewritten.

4.Since the topic is current but outdated literature is used. 7 papers out of 51 references are current the latest. All the outdated literature review needs to be replaced with the current one.

In the revised submission of the research paper, the number of references from 2020 onwards has been increased to 30, aligning with the updated research trends.

5.The manuscript lacks theoretical basis. The authors need to incorporate pertinent theory(ies) to establish a theoretical ground for the study. 

In the revised submission, the content has been changed to adopt the theory of planned behavior as the foundational framework, aiming to explore the antecedents influencing green word-of-mouth intention and validate the relationship with green purchasing behavior.

6.In the figure 1 one arrow is misplaced.

The research framework diagram and variable relationships have been extensively modified in the resubmission.

7.Sampling is flawed. Firstly, for hypotheses testing (using inferential statistics) the first assumption is random sampling. So there is a violation of this assumption. Secondly, it is not realistic to collect data from 450 respondents selected through snowball sampling. Thirdly, snowball sampling is followed when respondents are unknown. I don’t think customers were unknown in this case.

Based on the description in the fourth part of this study, the sampling process consisted of three stages. The participating institutions pre-numbered the list of all students and used the random function in Excel to select the recipients for questionnaire distribution. Subsequently, the questionnaires were administered either online through Google Forms or in traditional paper format to ensure compliance with random sampling characteristics.

The sampling method for this study has been revised from the previous snowball sampling process to random sampling. The selected students can either provide the questionnaire to their family members or fill it out themselves and submit it, thus completing the questionnaire response.

8.As these variables are closely related, for example, environmental awareness and environmental knowledge, there is a possibility of high autocorrelation and multicollinearity. Authors should check for autocorrelation, multicollinearity and common method bias.

After extensively modifying the research topic and framework, the issue of multicollinearity among variables was addressed. Through Tolerance value testing, it was found that the values of the variables ranged from 0.76 to 0.97, indicating no significant multicollinearity. Additionally, to address common method bias, the study implemented Temporal Separation of Measurement during questionnaire administration. Furthermore, a factor analysis was conducted, and the first principal component, which accounted for 47.81% of the variance (less than 50%), indicated no significant common method bias in this study.

9.Please explain how and under what principles the borrowed scales were modified to fit them to the needs of your research. What were the needs of your research?  What additions and deductions were made to each scale?

Without changing the original, the questionnaire items were appropriately modified in terms of language and semantics to meet the specific requirements of this study.

10. Create a section on discussion to discuss the finding in the lights of related literature and theoretical underpinnings.

This part will be included in the paragraph statements of the research conclusion.

11.Create a section on theoretical and managerial implications of the study.

This part will be included in the paragraph statements of the research conclusion.

12. Create a separate section on limitations and future research prospects.

The research limitations and future research directions have been addressed separately, following the comments.

 

13.English language editing is needed.

This study has undergone revisions and enhancements using various English editing software to improve readability and conciseness.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Please highlight the unique contribution of the study.

2. Please explain why only simple and hierarchy regression analysis were adopted instead of SEM.

3.Please provide detailed description of the data collection process to justify statistics analysis.

4.please explain why snowballing sample process is adopted.

5.questionnair question s suggested to put in appendex.

Need some revision

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your previous comments on the submitted content, which have greatly benefited for my research work. I have now completed the major revision. Below are your comments and my corresponding responses.

1. Please highlight the unique contribution of the study.

After major revisions to the previously submitted manuscript, this study focuses on the integration of environmental awareness, green advocacy, green self-efficacy, and green word-of-mouth intention with the theory of planned behavior. It constructs a research framework with the theory of planned behavior as the mediating role.

2. Please explain why only simple and hierarchy regression analysis were adopted instead of SEM.

After modifying the research framework, as the paths of the three variables in the framework do not a closed loop form, this study still uses hierarchical regression analysis to statistically validate the mediating variable.

3.Please provide detailed description of the data collection process to justify statistics analysis.

Based on the description in the fourth part of this study, the sampling process consisted of three stages. The participating institutions pre-numbered the list of all students and used the random function in Excel to select the recipients for questionnaire distribution. Subsequently, the questionnaires were administered either online through Google Forms or in traditional paper format to ensure compliance with random sampling characteristics.

4.please explain why snowballing sample process is adopted.

The sampling method for this study has been revised from the previous snowball sampling process to random sampling. The selected students can either provide the questionnaire to their family members or fill it out themselves and submit it, thus completing the questionnaire response.

5.questionnair question s suggested to put in appendex.

After making extensive revisions to this article, it now meets this requirement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper has been modified significantly.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript is satisfying. 

Quality of English language is OK. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed reviewers concerns and is ready to proceed for publication.

English language is OK.