Factors Affecting the Purchase Intention of Products with Environmentally Friendly Packaging of Urban Residents in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
At first, I would like to thank to the authors for their work. After reviewing the paper, the followings are the feedback for improvements:
1) Please revise the abstract because we need to discuss data analysis after the data collection.
For E.g., "We have built and tested the scale of variables by Cronbach Alpha analysis, and used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to select the main factors to be included in the impact regression model. Primary data was collected through direct survey of 485 customers using convenience sampling method."
2) The research gap and its importance are not clear. Though there are some sentences about the research gap, there were no references or literature support. For example, " However, the reality also shows that, in Vietnam, products with environmentally friendly packaging still face many difficulties in finding a place in the hearts and mindsets of consumers. One of the obvious reasons is that consumers in urban areas do not yet trust the quality of these environmentally friendly packaging. In addition, the price of products with this packaging is often higher than products of the same type using regular packaging."
Please revise your problem statement and the importance of the research based on the prior literature. Also, specify the research gap, please.
3) The literature review is quite good.
4) Please justify why you choose the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as well as other factors.
5) The research method section needs to rewrite as it is presently ambiguous. Under the research method, we need to cover the following subsections: i) Sample & Population ii) Measurement of Variables iii) Data collection procedures along with sample size and sampling technique.
6) If all the items of the study variables were adapted from the previous studies, then what was the necessity for conducting a Focus group discussion including 24 urban residents?
7) Please add the multicollinearity table and discuss the multicollinearity issues of your research variables.
Best Wishes!
Extensive editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you so much! The authors are very grateful to the Reviewer for appropriate and constructive suggestions and for proposed corrections to improve the paper.
We have addressed all the issues raised and have modified the paper accordingly. Attachment is a summary of the changes we performed and our responses to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The modifies have been placed and marked in red color text in the revision of manuscript.
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and suggestions to the authors
At the outset, I would like to thank the researchers for their efforts in conducting this meaningful study. After reviewing the manuscript, I have the following observations in this regard.
(1) The innovative points and research implications, theoretical and practical contributions of this paper need to be further enriched.
First, there are more studies that have explored topics related to environmental packaging and purchase intention. What are the innovative points of this paper compared to other academic articles?
Second, this paper could further enrich the particularities of the Ho Chi Minh City environment, highlight the significance of doing research in that environment, and make relevant recommendations in the final conclusion.
Third, the significance of the newly generated factors for theory and practice could be further detailed.
(2) Pre-experiments and sample-related issues.
First, the descriptions of the pre-experiments and formal experiments could be more detailed throughout the text. For example, the importance of sampling is mentioned in the text, but how to sample is not described.
Second, based on a simple judgment of the sample size, the sample of the pre-experiment is aggregated into the formal experiment, and the specifics and role of the pre-experiment are not known.
Third, there is not much discussion of the sample. For example, why the members of the pre-experimental panel were from educational and banking backgrounds, why the sample was over-represented by women, and why a high education level study population was selected.
(3) The sources of some of the scales need to be added, for example, table 5.
(4) This paper conducted an exploration of EFA and explored the validity and correlation. However, the CR/AVE equivalents of the scales were not measured, then there is a risk of poor goodness of fit, poor discriminant validity and the presence of common method bias, which is recommended to be added.
(5) In Table 11, the last column of question item PC1 indicates that removing the item Cronbach Alpha would be significantly higher, but no explanation is provided as to why the item was not removed.
(6) In the reporting of Table 18, the model expression indicates non-standardized results and adds insignificant variables, and the expression needs to be corrected. whereas the subsequent expression argues that standardized results should be expressed, and both appear simultaneously in the conclusion. It should be unified. The non-standardized results can even be omitted.
(1) In the first part of the introduction, there are some sentences that seem to be quoted from others, such as the second line on page 2, the sixteenth line on page 3, the ninth line of the first line on page 7, some sentences in 3.3, some statements in 3.5, and some sentences and phrases in 3.6. These sentences need to be cited.
(2) Formatting of the citation, e.g., in the product promotion section of 2.1 (page 3, line 15), there is a formatting problem with the name of the quoted author.
(3) Please uniform capitalization.
(4) It is necessary to adjust the position of green product consumption behavior and green product consumption intention in Figure 2 on page 5.
(5) Please note that the position of the caption of picture 2 needs to be repositioned due to the page change.
(6) The name of the dependent variable on page 10 should be Intention, not Intent.
(7) The variable in Table 2 should be variables.
(8) The fourth line on page 13 has a grammatical problem and is too redundant.
(9) Pay attention to the use of uniform punctuation, such as the period at the end of the question item in Table 4.
(10) Pay attention to the alignment of table titles, e.g., the title Source: Study Results (2022) in Table 5 should be centered and aligned.
(11) Pay attention to the consistency of font size and line feeds in Figure 6.
(12) Uniform reference format and remove spaces.
(13) The reference source of Table 2, Source: Study Results (2022), should be clarified.
(14) Can the EFA results be sorted in order for the question items?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you so much! The authors are very grateful to the Reviewer for appropriate and constructive suggestions and for proposed corrections to improve the paper.
We have addressed all the issues raised and have modified the paper accordingly. Attachment is a summary of the changes we performed and our responses to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The modifies have been placed and marked in red color text in the revision of manuscript.
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper Factors Affecting the Purchase Intention of Products with Environmentally Friendly Packaging of Urban Residents in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam deals with a real and important topic, which is consistent with the purpose of the journal. Overall the paper is nicely written, builds on appropriate theories and methods, and presents some good results. There are however some minor points that they might want to address.
1. A scientific paper also requires a discussion section, the results obtained could be compared with the results of other research carried out, possibly in other countries, and the opinion of the authors on similarities or differences should be presented.
2. The theoretical and managerial implications of the study should be presented more clearly.
3. The citation system and references do not correspond to the requirements of the journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you so much! The authors are very grateful to the Reviewer for appropriate and constructive suggestions and for proposed corrections to improve the paper.
We have addressed all the issues raised and have modified the paper accordingly. Attachment is a summary of the changes we performed and our responses to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The modifies have been placed and marked in red color text in the revision of manuscript.
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for addressing all the feedback. I am convinced.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, the efforts to improve the article are obvious. I recommend publishing the article in present form.
