Will Greenwashing Result in Brand Avoidance? A Moderated Mediation Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
We are dealing with a manuscript that deals with a previously analyzed issue but whose study is done from a new point of view. For this reason, this manuscript is of interest to the scientific community. Another important contribution is the application of some of its conclusions to the practice of brand management and professional practice.
The research addresses in a particular and interesting way the practice of the so-called Greenwash by some brands and the perception that consumers have of this process. It is a topic of great interest to the scientific community and of great value to the brands themselves. The approach is particular/original given the methodology and the conclusions it raises, which allows to expand the scientific literature with contributions of interest. It contributes a different methodology and results that allow to broaden the knowledge on the object of study presented. It is, therefore, a reference not only for the scientific community, but also for brand management professionals. The article is clear and correctly includes all the elements that should be present in a scientific work of these characteristics. The conclusions are directly linked to the stated objectives and the argumentation made throughout the text.
However, these results should be taken with caution since the sample may be somewhat small to fully meet such ambitious objectives as those presented at the beginning of the manuscript or as can be perceived in the title. In spite of everything, I consider that it is a good document.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your positive evaluation. You will never know how much your encouragement meant to us. We will indicate how we have addressed the problem you have raised below. Thank you again for your time and effort.
1. However, these results should be taken with caution since the sample may be somewhat small to fully meet such ambitious objectives as those presented at the beginning of the manuscript or as can be perceived in the title.
Thank you so much for this advice. We have revised the expressions in the introduction and discussion to be more modest, and highlight the limitation of sampling.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an interesting and relevant goal, by analysing the relationship between greenwash strategies and brand avoidance. The research is original and I believe that the focus on brand avoidance is relevant and constituites an literature gap.
The suggested model and relationships between variables are well stated in literature review. The main weaknesses of the paper are related with the model analysis, results and the discussion.
Concerning the model has mediators, authors have chosen to test it thought moderated mediation model with Bootstrapping method using the PROCESS V4.0 developed by Hayes in the SPSS. Why not using PLS-SEM, as it has antecendets and consequents and the strtural equation model may lead to undertanding no only the relationhsion between variables, but also the explanation ability of the model as a whole?
PROCESS V4.0 and the boostraping method allows researchers to test several models. In this paper one model is suggested. Results refer to several models analysed which are not clear for the reader. Wouldn't it be clearer to focus on the analysis of the proposed model as a whole and discuss the direct and indirect effects suggested, instead of showring the results of several (sub) models? When authors rever to Model 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 it is not clear what it is being analysed. Data
Data from SPSS with effects, LLCI, ULCI, BootLLCI and BoolULCI is required in tables, so that results can be analysed and discussed. Further, model could be showed again with statistic outputs, so that results are also clearer.
Discussion also need improvement. It is important to relate results with previous research and discuss the consistence and differences from this results from the ones obtained by others.
Table 3 includes to many information. A table with pearson correlation and square root of AVE between the 4 constructs of the model should be used on its own to test discriminant validity. The information about the other variables is not discussed nor analysed, so why were they included?
Further literature suggestion: Nemes, Noémi, et al. "An Integrated Framework to Assess Greenwashing." Sustainability 14.8 (2022): 4431.
Therefore, I suggest that authors review the reseacrh method, state and explain the options in a clear manner, as well as improve discussion.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your constructive comments! We believe that we have been able to address your comments and suggestions, and that our paper has been substantially improved thanks to you. Below, we will indicate how we have addressed each of your comments.
1. Concerning the model has mediators, authors have chosen to test it thought moderated mediation model with Bootstrapping method using the PROCESS V4.0 developed by Hayes in the SPSS. Why not using PLS-SEM, as it has antecendets and consequents and the strtural equation model may lead to undertanding no only the relationhsion between variables, but also the explanation ability of the model as a whole?
Thank you so much for this advice. It is because we are not familiar with PLS-SEM, and we have read many studies using the PROCESS to test moderated mediation effect. Besides, as Hayes et al. (2017) concluded, “The greater flexibility of SEM, both in terms of model specification and handling missing data, as well as its ability to account for random measurement error when estimating relevant effects involving latent variables all make it an attractive choice. But that comes at the price of greater effort and programming skill required to calculate relevant statistics and methods of inference that PROCESS does automatically and painlessly. For models that are based entirely on observed variables, investigators can rest assured that it generally makes no difference which is used, as the results will be substantively identical. The choice, in that case, is inconsequential.” (p.5). Therefore, we believe it is acceptable to test the hypotheses with PROCESS.
Hayes, A. F., Montoya, A. K., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25, 76-81
2. PROCESS V4.0 and the boostraping method allows researchers to test several models. In this paper one model is suggested. Results refer to several models analysed which are not clear for the reader. Wouldn't it be clearer to focus on the analysis of the proposed model as a whole and discuss the direct and indirect effects suggested, instead of showring the results of several (sub) models? When authors rever to Model 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 it is not clear what it is being analysed.
Thank you so much for this advice. Actually, we did propose one model and focus on the analysis of the proposed model. The five sub-models were presented to help readers to understand the relationships among the control variables, independent variable, mediating variable, moderating variable, and the interaction term, step by step, which is the standard format for such a study. Readers will understand what is being analyzed from the variables presented on the first column named “Variables”.
3. Data from SPSS with effects, LLCI, ULCI, BootLLCI and BoolULCI is required in tables, so that results can be analysed and discussed. Further, model could be showed again with statistic outputs, so that results are also clearer.
Thank you so much for this advice. We have added the LLCI, ULCI, BootLLCI and BoolULCI in the tables. However, we don’t think it is necessary to showed the model again with statistic outputs, since the model and the statistic outputs were all presented and discussed before.
4. Discussion also need improvement. It is important to relate results with previous research and discuss the consistence and differences from this results from the ones obtained by others.
Thank you so much for this advice. We have added more discussion about the consistence and differences between our results and the previous studies.
5. Table 3 includes to many information. A table with pearson correlation and square root of AVE between the 4 constructs of the model should be used on its own to test discriminant validity. The information about the other variables is not discussed nor analysed, so why were they included?
Thank you so much for this advice. We believed that the information about the other variables is also necessary, because it provides initial evidences for the relationships among all variables and further instructions for choosing control variables. However, there are too many correlations among the variables and it is impossible to discuss each of them, that’s exactly why the information about the other variables is necessary in the table. This is also the standard format for such a study.
6. Further literature suggestion: Nemes, Noémi, et al. "An Integrated Framework to Assess Greenwashing." Sustainability 14.8 (2022): 4431.
Thank you so much for this advice. We have added this literature in our introduction and discussion to support the importance of the topic and the contributions of this study.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors, It’s my pleasure to go through your paper titled. It’s excellent point and you did a good job. However, it’s not well documented. Many points are listed here that may help you upgrading your thesis. These are as follows.
Your introduction has a deficiency to provide background information and set the context. In addition, your introduction section insufficiently introduces your research topic and not explain the importance of your topic.
In the literature, review the researcher must be critical and consistent in our arguments. But your literature review lacks in this perspective. Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps. After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of the major achievements in the reviewed field, the main areas of debate, and the outstanding research questions. So please try to incorporate the above-mentioned guidelines.
Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results. The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. Please elaborate and justify sampling technique selection.
Your discussion chapter requires more improvements. The discussion chapter is where you investigate the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results. It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and research questions, and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion. You may align your discussion with literature review and research questions and consider the following key elements such as interpretations: what do the results mean? implications: why do the results matter? limitations: what can’t the results tell us? And recommendations: what practical actions or scientific studies should follow?
References are written not so good. They should be written up to standard! A few which are incomplete ones, different styles, full stop within the title, not in sequence!
In general, please pay attention to your writing and formatting.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your constructive comments! We believe that we have been able to address your comments and suggestions, and that our paper has been substantially improved thanks to you. Below, we will indicate how we have addressed each of your comments.
1. Your introduction has a deficiency to provide background information and set the context. In addition, your introduction section insufficiently introduces your research topic and not explain the importance of your topic.
Thank you so much for this advice. We have revised the introduction to be more related to the literature and explain the importance of our topic.
2. In the literature, review the researcher must be critical and consistent in our arguments. But your literature review lacks in this perspective. Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps. After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of the major achievements in the reviewed field, the main areas of debate, and the outstanding research questions. So please try to incorporate the above-mentioned guidelines.
Thank you so much for this advice. We have revised the literature, to be more critical and consistent with our arguments.
3. Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results. The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. Please elaborate and justify sampling technique selection.
Thank you so much for this advice. We have reported more details about how the survey was conducted.
4. Your discussion chapter requires more improvements. The discussion chapter is where you investigate the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results. It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and research questions, and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion. You may align your discussion with literature review and research questions and consider the following key elements such as interpretations: what do the results mean? implications: why do the results matter? limitations: what can’t the results tell us? And recommendations: what practical actions or scientific studies should follow?
Thank you so much for this advice. We have revised the discussion, by adding more discussion about the consistence and differences between our results and the previous studies, what the brands and the society should do, and what further studies should researchers do next.
5. References are written not so good. They should be written up to standard! A few which are incomplete ones, different styles, full stop within the title, not in sequence!
Thank you so much for this advice. We have checked all the references and fixed them.
6. In general, please pay attention to your writing and formatting.
Thank you so much for this advice. We have checked our writing and formatting throughout the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing previous comments and suggestions.
I still believe table 3 requires discussion, despite the fact you wouldn't explain all the relationships.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors incorporate all the suggested recommendations
