The Impact of Green Brand Crises on Green Brand Trust: An Empirical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for letting me review an interesting manuscript with the title "The Impact of Green Brand Crisis on Green Brand Trust: An Empirical Study". The topic discussed is very up-to-date and suitable for the journal.

Eventhough, I found some corrections to be made, in order for the manuscript to be more sound. Please, find my comments in the following.

In lines 25-27 you present the definition of greenwashing. I found it to be a citation. Please, insert the proper reference.

There are parts of the manuscript that need references: lines 38 to 40, 54 to 56, 57 to 60, 62 to 63, 66 to 67, 69 to 71, 77 to 89, 100 to 103, 107 to 110, 112 to 134, 172 to 193, 209 to 213, 262 to 265, 272 to 274, 420 to 421, 500 to 505, 602 to 605, 622 to 624. Please, add relevant references.

Please, substitute the term "sex" with the more appropriate term "gender" in all the text.

The hypothesis H1c is not a hypothesis but a statement. Please, delete it or test it with an appropriate statistical test. Delete also the text in lines 331 to 335 (about the hypothesis 1c).

Before inserting Figure 1 in the text, explain what the figure represents (lines 252 to 253). Explain also the figure (describe the model).

Explain the results from Table 1.

There is a substantial problem in terminology when presenting the results from regression analysis. The correct phrasing should be: "the value of the coefficient is... and is statistically signifiant at the ... level (or not statistically significant at the 0,05 level)". When phrasing about the results you should use: "According to results, the hypothesis 1 can be accepted (or cannot be accepted). Thus, we can conclude that the product functional crisis of green brand has a negative impact on green brand trust". Correct for all the text. What does it mean that the coefficient is positively or negatively significant? Since the values of the statistical significance lye between 0 and 1 they can never be negative. Correct in all text.

In line 400 there is a typo at the end of the sentence. There is a , instead of a . In lines 401 to 404 do not use the term that columns are, but use that the term there is presented, there is shown,...

There are plenty of statements that are not clear or not completed: lines 444 to 482 need substantial improvement and restructuring. This section is totally unclear, with typos, not completed sentences and wrongly used terminology. Do not use "the results show a positive effect at the 1% level, that is med significant". Use "the value of the coefficient is ... and is statistically significant at the ... level. Correct in all text.

The numbering of the sections is not correct. Line 443 starts with number 1, line 465 starts with number 2. This clearly shows that the text was written by two different authors who did not put effort to check grammarly and technically the soundness of the manuscript.

In Section 4.4. there is no evidence on how the scores for mediation, dangerous, value, con, control have been obtained. Please, explain, Add also a table with descriptive statistics for this scales and explain the results.

There is a major problem in the text regarding the insertion of your own judgement. In a scientific paper, there is no place for personal judgements. You need to provide references or delete the text: lines 421 to 425, 564 to 566, 590 to 593, 608 to 613.

What does it mean the sentence Assign 1-5 points respectively. in line 514?

There is also a problem with statistical significance. We usually set it at 5 % but you used a 10 % significance level in lines 523 to 533.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting topic. The study is original and significantly contributes to our undertanding of green washing.

There are however, a few points that need to be addressed prior to the study's acceptance for publication.

the intoduction needs to be strenthened with respect to the study's contibution. The authors briefly report on the study's dual contribution. They need to make it more explicit and thus enhancce the value of their work.

The literature review is clear and comprehensive but should be better referenced. The hypotheses are clearly formulated.

In the methodology section the authors need to report on the origins of the scales used in their questionnaire. Do they use scales introduced in prior studies? Do they develop their own items? It is not clear. 

The analysis is detailed and well presented. The final discussion however needs to be strengthened. A topic as the one discussed in this study has significant implications for a number of stakeholders that need to be put forward. The authors need to built upon the implications of their work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This research examined the formation of green brand trust. Perceived value and risk are used as mediators, and brand familiarity is employed as a moderator. Although the paper deals with an interesting topic, it needs a major revision. My comments are outlined as follows:

 

The abstract looks like a part of the literature review section. It should be re-written. It should summarize the whole manuscript and address the value/originality of the research.

 

The last paragraph of the introduction section is not necessary. Remove it.

 

The literature review section needs a significant improvement. The authors should place references that support sentences they wrote. Many sentences need references. Simply writing down the authors’ thoughts is not adequate for a scientific paper.

 

Remove “will” from hypotheses.

 

Is there any reason to utilize perceived value and risk as mediators?

 

What is the difference between value-related crisis and perceived value? Does value-related crisis increases/decreases value perception? This relationship is somewhat vague.

 

Why only two dimensions are used for green brand crisis?  Is there any reason for the authors not to expand the dimensions? Ignoring this effort would lower the originality of this research.

 

As compared to other sections, the conclusion section is very weakly written.

 

The authors should rework on the entire manuscript and improve English. A considerable number of sentences should be re-written.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for resubmitting and correcting the manuscript entitled "The Impact of Green Brand Crisis on Green Brand Trust: An Empirical Study". The spelling was checked by a native speaker which adds greatly to the journal. I have still found some corrections that were not made, according to my previous suggestions. Please, find them in the following.

The hypothesis 1c has not been tested with appropriate statistical tests. Just saying that one coefficient is higher than the other is not enough. You shoud test if this difference is statistically significant or not. I would recommend you to delete this hypothesis.

There are still some references missing: lines 211 to 213, lines 233 to 234, lines 297 to 300, lines 307 to 309, lines 470 to 472, lines 558 to 561. Please, add references or delete sentences.

You forgot to describe figure 1 and table 1. Please, do so.

You have not provided references or delete conclusions based on your assumption. In scientific manuscripts assumptions must be avoided. As such, I would recommend you to delete those assumptions, namely lines 379 (since you have not tested the hypothesis 1c with appropriate statistical test, delete the hypothesis and the conclusion that it was accepted; you can mention that one coefficient is greater than the other but do not mention statistical difference if there is no test provided), lines 472 to 477 (this is a speculation without any scientific evidence), lines 628 to 630 (again, this is your assumption without any scientific evidence), lines 656 to 659 (the same as before), lines 674 to 680 (the same as before) and lines 701 to 708 (again, speculation without any scientific evidence).

There is a minor spelling error. In line 450 there is a comma (,) after the sentence. You have to replace it with the dot (.).

Lines 451 to 454 present a minor grammar error. You cannot say that the columns are, but write that the columns represent or show.

When presenting the research instrument, there is no evidence how some variables (mediation, dangerous, value, control) were measured and constructed. There is also no evidence of their descriptive statistics. Please, provide appropriate explanation.

Again, the part from lines 494 to 554 show great problem for the reader. The numbering of the sections was not corrected (again, it starts with section 1 and 2). There is also a substantial problem with the wording. Terms, such as positively and negatively significant are not correct. In statistics we say that the impact or correlation is statistically significant at at certain level of significance and that the correlation is positive or negative. In no way we say positively or negatively significant. The sentences have a lot of errors, such as "Thus, it can be concluded that perceived risk plays an intermediary role in a green brand value-related crisis and green brand trust. significant-". What does this mean? Why is the word significant in a new sentence. That does not make sense. The author of this whole section has to substantially improve writing skills. 

Please, correct all the mentioned errors and resubmit the paper for review.

Happy holidays!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been considerably improved. The revised version looks better than the original one. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review.