Effectiveness of China’s Labeling and Incentive Programs for Household Energy Conservation and Policy Implications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your paper. It is an interesting paper, although it needs improvements to make it more easy to be read and followed.
First, you should clarify and state which are the aims, research gaps identified, research questions/hypotheses etc.
Second, you should restructure and rearrange the paper, so that different parts with specific aim and role be clearly presented. Now there is a mix between introduction, literature, theoretical foundation, methods, results etc.
Third, results, discussion and conclusions should be separated and clearly presented. In the final part you should present the conclusions and their practical utility, theoretical implications, limitations etc.
The style and writing can be improved, by removing repetitions and non-necessary text. It is difficult to follow the logic of the paper, there is a lack of clarity which need to be addressed.
I really hope you will improve and revise the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper fits into the remit of the Sustainability journal as it is focused on energy efficiency of two household appliances and the factors that influence purchase in China.
In the introduction, the authors state that residential consumption and emissions have risen dramatically in China - over what time period and why?
A key part of the paper is the role of information, which is not an unproblematic solution to changing people’s behaviour - the authors should be more critical of the literature. For example, the collection of papers in N.K. Malhotra (ed) 2016 Marketing in and for a sustainable society. Bingley UK: Emerald. And for an investigation into the role of labels on domestic white goods see Oates et al (2008) in the Journal of Marketing Communications 14(5). Also, see a special issue of this journal Sustainability from 2015 called Challenges for marketers in sustainable production and consumption.
Section 3 on the regulatory framework of China lacks supporting references, including Figure 1.
In the Methods, it would be helpful to state the rationale for choosing air conditioners and washing machines. And when was the research undertaken? For the ‘incentive program’ what kinds of subsidy are included? For example, a retailer sale, a manufacturer special offer, a buy one get one free? Or did you mean in relation to energy efficiency specifically? Such as declarations of reduced energy consumption when using the product, or a reduced price for the most energy efficient rated product? And how do these incentives differ from the eco-labelling? In participant responses, how do you know which ‘incentive program’ or ‘buyer subsidy’ they are recalling?
I suspect the wider context is missing in this paper’s premise - the paper shifts the focus onto consumer behaviour rather than considering the wider picture in which consumption occurs, for example manufacturing, retailing and policy responsibility in providing a limited choice to consumers of only energy efficient products to choose from, or promoting alternatives to energy-guzzling products. Some material does acknowledge this eg in Section 3 but the tone of the paper seems to point the finger at purchasers for not making the ‘right’ decision. Putting the onus onto individuals to behave in a particular way, guided by information (which I have already noted is problematic) is to make sustainability an individual problem.
Paper requires a proof read for grammar.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for providing a revised version of your manuscript. Although the authors made several improvements and the paper is much readable now, I will still point some issues:
1.Introduction is too long, ie 3 pages out of the 13 of the article. Some parts should be moved in the second section or below
2. Section 2 should be named as Literature Review and hypotheses (because you mention 3 hypotheses).
3.Hypotheses should come naturally AFTER presenting the theoretical background not before.
4.The paper needs to have a more solid theoretical foundation, there is also need to place the research within the Agenda 2030 for China, You can use this article doi.org/10.3390/su12156288, which is from Sustainability but there are also other good article addressing SDG in China in the framework of 2030 Agenda.
5. Putting your findings in the context of other articles as well as addressing the limitations and how they could be overcame would be beneficia.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have made a good attempt to address reviewer concerns so agree that the paper is almost acceptable subject to minor Engliash language requirements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for providing the revised version of your paper. I consider it consistently improved and gaining in clarity.
