Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer found this study interesting and needed in the literature. A few revisions and suggestions are kindly reported below.

Abstract

Lines 19-22: the font is different

Introduction

Lines 59-63: These sentences are a repetition of lines 50-54.

M&M

Line 233: May the reviewer ask to indicate which online platform was used?

Conclusion

In the reviewer’s opinion, the conclusion paragraph is too long-winded. May the reviewer suggest synthesizing the conclusions, and removing also some of the cited references? It is unusual to see all these references cited in the conclusion paragraph.

 

Secondly, the reviewer would ask to move table 3 (and its description) from the conclusion to the results/discussion paragraph.

Author Response

Thank you for your keen observation! It was very helpful.

Abstract and Introduction - solved.

The online platform is called sondaje.ro. I didn't mention it because I expect it to be unknown beyond Romania.

Conclusions:

1. I moved Table 3 in the Discussion section (and introduced it differently), but I kept the paragraph before it in Conclusions, because it is about the managerial implications...
2. By evoking in Conclusions almost all the papers presented in the literature review, I wanted to emphasize the similarities (693-700) and the differences (700-705) between the results of this research and the results of others, as well as the novel insights (706-725). This is why I consider that these references add some value and, if it's not a big problem, I would prefer to keep them.

Thank you again for all your suggestions! Kind regards.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

In the present study author investigates Romanian consumer’s sustainable food-related habits and opinions during purchase and consumption, but also on waste management.

It contributes to highlight consumer’s behavior related to sustainable food related habits and their distrust in European institution.

The manuscript is moderately well written, results are appropriately presented and well discussed based on supporting data and literature.

This is a highly interesting and original work which require minor corrections before publication.

 

General remarks – Strength and weakness

This research article is really highly interesting and well pointed out the current need of consumer approval to achieve European sustainability objectives.

However, to be more impacting, author need to accurately check spelling, punctation and sentences which are sometimes unclear, not understandable, specifically within he introduction.

 

Specific comments

-         Abstract

L6-7 – the “o” of “.ro” is not comprise in the mail link

L19-22 – character size is different

 

-         Introduction

Line 40 – “fulfill” instead of “fulfil”

L46 – Ref [6] need to be move at the end of the sentence

L50-54 and L59-63 are similar, I think you want to keep the red part and remove L50-54

L58: “but is only based on” instead of “but based only on”

L74: “p.34”??; L77: “p.5”??; L79: “p1”??

L86: remove “because” and a [12], it’s not necessary and facilitates the reading

L93: if it’s the “older people” who have higher income and education, remove the “,”; if it’s not, please checked the sentence, or add “people” before with.

L99-100: I don’t understand what you want to explain with “and customers who erroneous anticipate some information like 99 the price or expiry dates”

L102: “Next to sustainable food” instead of “Next to eating sustainable”

L116: “tons” or “tonnes” instead of “tones”

L119: “and” instead of “-“

L134-135: please add “,” between “some” and “such”

L135-137: There is repetition of “they are”, please simplify the sentence

 

-         Materials and methods

Table 1 – Please verify number, some are in double some are missing

Figure 1 – Modify the Y-axis, there is too many digits after the comma

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for your feedback! It was very helpful. Two questions: 1. About the citation - [2] (p. 34). This is how I've seen I should write on "Instruction for Authors" (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions - "for example [5] (p. 10) or [6] (pp. 101–105)"). What did I do wrong?  L99-100 - Is it better this way? "...and customers erroneous anticipating some information from the labels like the price or expiry dates [15]." Thank you so much!  

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented scientific article has added scientific value in view of the current post-covid situation around the world. It is clear from the content of the article that it is a revised version. Despite the fact that the authors are apparently economists, in my opinion, the article clearly lacks a legislative perspective on the issue of electronic commerce and consumer protection.

It should be remembered that not only European, but especially national legislation determines the limits for traders and the limits of contractual freedom. The same legislation ensures the protection of the consumer as the weaker contracting party. for that reason, I draw attention to works such as Peráček, T. (2022). E-commerce and its limits in the context of consumer protection: the case of the Slovak Republic. Juridical Tribune - Tribuna Juridica, 12 (1), pp. 35-50, doi: 10.24818/TBJ/2022/12/1.03

   

From the point of view of understanding behaviors in niche markets formed by small-sized and/or isolated consumers who need customized sustainable and economically efficient applications for heating the water for domestic and business use, it is also necessary to take into account the situation and the relevant setting of priorities influencing factors of regional competitiveness, which logically have a significant connection to consumers, which is addressed, for example, by the authors of the study: DOI: 10.1051/E3SCONF/202130104005

 

I am convinced that incorporating knowledge from these works will not take much time for the authors and will significantly increase the scientific value of the work under consideration.

Author Response

I already mentioned as stakeholders that can make a difference "Policy-makers at all levels – European, national, local city administration, and even tenants associations". Also, I added now: "but national regulations sometimes lag behind the European ones [5,6]", referring to the first paper you mentioned.

Regarding the competition, I took the liberty of inserting some info from one of my previous papers, since is closer to the topic: "Increasing the consumers’ interest in sustainable food is especially important because of the disparities met between the modern and sustainable retailers, usually, the last being unable to make economies of scale, facing unfavorable national or regional regulation, and being more distressed by non-European competitors that can escape the European regulation by selling online [25]." 

I hope this covers nicely both of your suggestions. Thank you so much for your help!

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

I'm glad that you at least partially incorporated my comments. Their partiality consists in the fact that you did not include the sources suggested by me in the list of references, you only referred to your previous works in the comment, which is really insufficient.

I consider it necessary to remind that the journal Sustainability is a high-quality journal and the processing of each scientific article also requires a large amount of used literature.

I was suggesting two really very relevant up-to-date sources that should be part of the reference. Therefore, it is really necessary to complete the article in this part, which will not take you much time.

Author Response

I'm sorry. I don't know what happened. The last version here is not the one I uploaded last. I did mention the first paper - it is the sixth reference, lines 37 and 178-180. The idea of coherent laws is found in lines 702-703, too.

The second one it was more difficult for me to get my head around it... I didn't see the connection right away. I introduced it now - it is the 26th reference, lines 105-122 and 178-180.

If you feel that I still didn't understand completely your ideas, I am open to changes, but please explain it again... 

I attach here the current file in case the platform is showing the first version again.

Thank you for your feedback and patience!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on the modifications made, I recommend publishing this article in the form presented.