Luxury Products and Sustainability Issues from the Perspective of Young Italian Consumers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations for a good article!

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Some formal changes have been done in Introduction, Literature Review, Materials and Methods and Discussion and Conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors undertake a multi-faceted issue that is of importance to scholars, business, and policy-makers alike. The issues are relevant to the journal audience. Rather than focus on the obvious strengths of the manuscript, I devote the following critique to areas of potential improvement.

My chief concerns are:

#1 Introduction: The introduction is too long. If we look at section 1 – Interlocution only ends on page 8. I think there is some error here and the authors would like to initiate the literature review around somewhere – please clarify. Anyway, I have difficult to understand what is new here. I mean, the gaps find out on past literature and how this research tries to fill this is not clearly explored and clarified.

# Literature Review (?) – Here I suggest to present your conceptual model which will aggregate the several relationships between your dimensions of the study according to your research Hypotheses. However these research hypotheses are not in the right place, I mean, the hypotheses should be presented within of literature review, not in the methods section. Please try to formulate each hypothesis according to the arguments found out in the literature and not simply to list all hypotheses together.  

#2 Materials and Methods: This section is well structured, however, I suggest introducing a table with the variables used in the empirical study and the authors (previous literature) that support those dimensions. I had some difficult to identify what were the authors that you have supported your variables of analysis and how they were measured. Please try to give a piece of specific information about the methodological procedure, maybe to introduce a table with those variables and how they were measured and bases in what literature, helps the reader.

#3 Results: If you discuss the hypotheses according to the obtained results, in this section, it will clearer for the reader. There are lots of information and some conversation of the results with the previous literature is suggested. The option to discuss the results in the Conclusion section is not, in my opinion, the best one.

#4 Conclusions: If you move the discussion of the previous section, you will have room here to develop a little bit the conclusions focusing on the main contributions, practical and theoretical implications of the study, limitations and future agenda.

I wish the author/s all the best in developing their manuscript.

Author Response

#1 Introduction: The introduction is too long. If we look at section 1 – Interlocution only ends on page 8. I think there is some error here and the authors would like to initiate the literature review around somewhere – please clarify. Anyway, I have difficult to understand what is new here. I mean, the gaps find out on past literature and how this research tries to fill this is not clearly explored and clarified.

Literature Review (?) – Here I suggest to present your conceptual model which will aggregate the several relationships between your dimensions of the study according to your research Hypotheses. However these research hypotheses are not in the right place, I mean, the hypotheses should be presented within of literature review, not in the methods section. Please try to formulate each hypothesis according to the arguments found out in the literature and not simply to list all hypotheses together.

Introduction was shortened and Literature review was re‐organized. 

2 Materials and Methods: This section is well structured, however, I suggest introducing a table with the variables used in the empirical study and the authors (previous literature) that support those dimensions. I had some difficult to identify what were the authors that you have supported your variables of analysis and how they were measured. Please try to give a piece of specific information about the methodological procedure, maybe to introduce a table with those variables and how they were measured and bases in what literature, helps the reader.

A table has been inserted into the article with all variables explicitly listed.

3 Results: If you discuss the hypotheses according to the obtained results, in this section, it will clearer for the reader. There are lots of information and some conversation of the results with the previous literature is suggested. The option to discuss the results in the Conclusion section is not, in my opinion, the best one.

The hypotheses were removed from the Materials and methods chapter and moved to the first part of the article

4 Conclusions: If you move the discussion of the previous section, you will have room here to develop a little bit the conclusions focusing on the main contributions, practical and theoretical implications of the study, limitations and future agenda.

The conclusion was slightly modified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper investigate the impact of ‘sustainable tendencies’ on stimulating the luxury goods purchasing of the Italian Generation Z’s and Generation Y’s members.

It is an interesting paper, but there are some aspects that the authors need to improve:

For a better clarity please rewrite the lines 399-408 and verify the number of each reference.

In my opinion you can add the questionnaire to the annexes.

The comparisons of the results obtained with other similar studies are missing you can try to find other research with similar results.

Author Response

For a better clarity please rewrite the lines 399-408 and verify the number of each reference.

We've fixed the detected errors (in references) and one confusing sentence was excluded from the text (line 395-398 in original paper, 440-443 in revised paper).

In my opinion you can add the questionnaire to the annexes.

A table with all variables explicitly listed has been inserted into the article (Table 1 in the revised document).

The comparisons of the results obtained with other similar studies are missing you can try to find other research with similar results.

Some comparisons have been added to "Results" (lines 638-656 in revised document).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author(s),


I have looked at your efforts to attend to my two comments and am very pleased to congratulate you on the changes you have made to the manuscript.

I am delighted to now recommending an 'Accept' decision.

All the very best in your future writing!

Best Regards