Exploring Generation Z’s Investment Patterns and Attitudes towards Greenness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General assessment: Interesting research topic, certainly this article has potential.

Recommendations:

To review:

The entire method of citation in the text - the numbering of the sources in the order in which they appear in the text in square brackets was not used.

-       For example, the first source cited in the paper appears on lines 36-37 - "According to a study by BofA Global Research (2020), Generation Z investors are looking.." - but in References - appears on number 4. It will be revised as follows: "According to a study by BofA Global Research [1], Generation Z investors are looking.." - and with reference to no. 1. The full source should appear: BofA Global Research. OK Zoomer: Gen Z Primer. BofA Thematic Proprietary Survey 2020.

I looked for this source with interest, but I only identified articles that refer to this source. Source to be rechecked/revised/completed (eg https://www.assemblyglobal.com/insights/ok-zoomer-the-journey-of-gen-z).

On pp. 116 - 121 - the citation "Singh's et al. research performed a cross-sectional research ... (2023)." Will review - “Singh's et al. [33] research performed a cross-sectional research ... .” (number 33 is given as an example), and the full source appears in the Bibliography at the indicated number: Singh, Y.; Adil, M.; Haque, S. M. I. Personality traits and behavior biases: the moderating role of risk-tolerance. Quality & 559 Quantity, 2023, 57, 3549–3573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01516-4.

- Idem to the quotations from pp. 123-130; pp. 140-143; pp. 159-160; pp. 169-176 (do not put the year at the end of the paragraph).

2. Review of the literature

- I recommend structuring the information, for example:

            - 2.1 Financial behavior – concept, characteristics, directions

            - 2.2 Green investing – influencing factors/ Investor behavior sentiment and green concepts

            - 2.3 Z generation – investment profile

3. Methodology

- I recommend the formulation of research hypotheses or research questions. I understood the objective of the paper: "The aim of this paper is to identify the types of Generation Z investors according to their tendency towards rationality and to find out how these groups react to green investments." However, I think it is necessary to organize the research on hypotheses/research questions.

 

- I recommend presenting the 15 questions in the questionnaire in the form of a table. I did not understand how many questions referred to green investment. I understood the characterization of the three blocks of questions, but I think it is necessary to present the questions.

- Considering that you referred to the differences in the investment behavior between women and men - I recommend an addition to the description of the respondents pp. 272-277 - with the presentation of the weights of how many female students and how many men answered the questionnaire.

Thank you!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We have worked very hard to improve the publication. Thank you for your additional time.

‚The entire method of citation in the text - the numbering of the sources in the order in which they appear in the text in square brackets was not used. For example, the first source cited in the paper appears on lines 36-37 - "According to a study by BofA Global Research (2020), Generation Z investors are looking.." - but in References - appears on number 4. It will be revised as follows: "According to a study by BofA Global Research [1], Generation Z investors are looking.." - and with reference to no. 1. The full source should appear: BofA Global Research. OK Zoomer: Gen Z Primer. BofA Thematic Proprietary Survey 2020.On pp. 116 - 121 - the citation "Singh's et al. research performed a cross-sectional research ... (2023)." Will review - “Singh's et al. [33] research performed a cross-sectional research ... .” (number 33 is given as an example), and the full source appears in the Bibliography at the indicated number: Singh, Y.; Adil, M.; Haque, S. M. I. Personality traits and behavior biases: the moderating role of risk-tolerance. Quality & 559 Quantity, 2023, 57, 3549–3573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01516-4.- Idem to the quotations from pp. 123-130; pp. 140-143; pp. 159-160; pp. 169-176 (do not put the year at the end of the paragraph).’

Thank you very much for your remarks, we have matched citation with numbers in the list of references according journal’s requirement. It was not done in the previous version. The text of  ‚BofA Global Research. OK Zoomer: Gen Z Primer. BofA Thematic Proprietary Survey 2020’was available on the Bloomberg platform, the information was added.

2. Review of the literature

- I recommend structuring the information, for example:

            - 2.1 Financial behavior – concept, characteristics, directions

            - 2.2 Green investing – influencing factors/ Investor behavior sentiment and green concepts

            - 2.3 Z generation – investment profile

It was done, the text in yellor in the article.

3. Methodology

- I recommend the formulation of research hypotheses or research questions. I understood the objective of the paper: "The aim of this paper is to identify the types of Generation Z investors according to their tendency towards rationality and to find out how these groups react to green investments." However, I think it is necessary to organize the research on hypotheses/research questions.

It was done, the text in yellor in the article.

- I recommend presenting the 15 questions in the questionnaire in the form of a table. I did not understand how many questions referred to green investment. I understood the characterization of the three blocks of questions, but I think it is necessary to present the questions.

The survey questionnaire consisted of 15 diagnostic questions divided into three blocks of five questions each according to the personality dimensions of investors. The questionnaire was designed using closed-ended questions. The first block of questions was designed to determine whether the investor was an idealist or a pragmatist (I or P) according to his personality profile. The second block of questions identified whether the investor was a framer or an integrator (F or N), and the third block of questions asked whether the investor was a reflector or a realist (T or R). This model was supplemented with questions on green investment propensity to see which type of students were more likely to consider the environmental impact of their financial decisions (Figure 4).

- Considering that you referred to the differences in the investment behavior between women and men - I recommend an addition to the description of the respondents pp. 272-277 - with the presentation of the weights of how many female students and how many men answered the questionnaire.

To secure anonymity, the decision not to collect data based on gender was confirmed.

Best regards,

Authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor Changes before publication
Introduction:	The introduction effectively establishes the context and significance of the research topic. 1) However, it would benefit from a more explicit statement of the paper's contribution to the existing literature. 2) A concise statement summarizing the gap the paper fills in the current understanding of Generation Z investors and financial technology impact would enhance the introduction.
Literature Review:	While the literature review is extensive, a more critical synthesis of existing research could strengthen the paper.   1) Identify conflicting findings or gaps in the literature that your study addresses. 2) Furthermore, ensure that all references are up to date, as the field of behavioral finance evolves rapidly.
Methodology:	The methodology section is clear and well-structured, providing a comprehensive understanding of the research approach. 1) However, including details on the sample selection process and potential biases in the student population would enhance the transparency and credibility of the study. 2) Additionally, consider providing a brief rationale for choosing the Pompian MBTI model.
Results:	The results section is well-organized and effectively presents key findings. 1) However, consider providing more context or interpretation for specific data points. 2) Ensure clarity in presenting how each personality type correlates with green investment preferences.
Discussion:	The discussion is insightful, providing a nuanced analysis of the study's findings. To enhance the section, consider integrating the limitations and future research directions more seamlessly into the discussion. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of the study.
Conclusion:	The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings and their implications. 1) To strengthen the conclusion, reiterate the practical implications of the research for policymakers, businesses, and investors. 2) Additionally, provide a succinct restatement of the paper's main contributions to the field.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We have worked very hard to improve the publication. Thank you for your additional time. We have added remarks in the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article „Exploring the Generation Z Investments Patterns and Attitudes to Greenness” is interesting. However, I propose to add some changes:

1)     The information about the limitations of research ought to be in the Methodology part of the article.

2)     In the methodology part, some hypotheses could be formulated

3)     Several times in the article  generation Z was written with a lowercase letter

4)     In par. 140-141 some words are missing or incorrectly changed

5)     At the end of the article try to write some directions for possible, future research  

 

6)     In the Conclusion part please define the value added to this research

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review. We have worked very hard to improve the publication. Thank you for your additional time.

‘1)     The information about the limitations of research ought to be in the Methodology part of the article.’

Based on your remarks, the text was expanded. The new text is yellow in the Methodology part.

2)     In the methodology part, some hypotheses could be formulated

Two statistical hypotheses were raised, the text in yellow.

3)     Several times in the article  generation Z was written with a lowercase letter

The term ‘Generation Z’ was checked and improved.

4)     In par. 140-141 some words are missing or incorrectly changed

The logical mistake was fixed.

5)     At the end of the article try to write some directions for possible, future research  

 Based on your remarks, the text was expanded.

6)     In the Conclusion part please define the value added to this research

 Based on your remarks, the text was expanded.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Average.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We have worked very hard to improve the publication. Thank you for your additional time.

‘The introduction could benefit from a more detailed context setting. While it outlines the topic, it lacks a compelling narrative about why this research is particularly timely or critical, especially in the context of current global environmental and economic challenges. Consider adding a few sentences that highlight recent trends in Generation Z's behavior or attitudes that make this study particularly relevant now’

Based on your remarks the introduction was improved by highlighting the research gap and timeliness of the study. The paragraph in yellow in the Introduction section.

‘The literature review should be expanded to include more recent studies, ensuring that the most current trends and findings are discussed. This will not only strengthen the foundation of your research but also help in clearly establishing how your study adds to the existing body of knowledge. Additionally, try to create a more cohesive narrative that logically progresses from one study to the next, culminating in the identification of your research ga’.

The literature review section was reorganised into three parts, and more analysed articles were added. The yellow section in the Literature review section.

 ‘The methodology section is well-structured but could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the selection criteria for your participants and the rationale behind the chosen methods. This would strengthen the validity of your research design and help readers understand how your approach is suited to addressing your research questions.’

We improved the Methodology section, text in yellow.

‘The results are clearly presented, but they lack depth in analysis. It would be beneficial to not only report the findings but also provide some initial interpretation or context. This could involve comparing your results with existing literature or briefly discussing any surprising or expected trends that emerged.’

We improved the Result section, text in yellow.

‘The discussion section needs to be more robust. It should not only interpret the results but also delve into the implications of these findings, especially in relation to existing literature. Discuss what your findings mean for Generation Z's behavior and attitudes towards green investments, and how this might influence future economic and environmental policies. Also, address the limitations of your study and suggest areas for future research.’

We improved the Discussion section, text in yellow.

‘The conclusion currently summarizes the study well but could be enhanced by more directly addressing the real-world implications of your findings. Consider adding a few sentences that speak to policymakers, educators, or financial institutions about how this research might inform their work with Generation Z. Additionally, a brief mention of the potential long-term impacts of these investment patterns could provide a strong ending to the paper.’

We improved the Conclusion section, text in yellow.

Best regards, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study. My comments are as follows:

 

1.     Line 33: Remove “at the same time” in the first sentence of the Introduction section.

2.     Line 39: What is this “survey”? If it is the one mentioned on line 36, please make a better structure from line 36 to line 41.

3.     Lines 68-79: It is better for you to cite a definition of “investor” from the existing literature.

4.     Lines 81-83: Again, it is better for you to cite a definition of “behaviour” from the existing literature.

5.     No research questions were stated. You should state your research questions before Section 3.

6.     You have two Figure 1. They are simply two ways to express the percentage distribution of the eight trait combinations. Please remove one of the two figures.

7.     Line 331: Although PFR ranked first, it only covered about a third and PNR lags only 0.3%. So, you should not say that “most of the students” belong to the PFR type.

8.     Lines 336-341: What are the error margins for estimation? You should describe it clearly for readers who may not well versed in statistics. In addition, I would like to see a table with confidence intervals. This would help readers understand more about the lower and upper bounds of each percentage.

9.     Line 384: The discussion of the correlations found in Figure 3 seems interesting. Is it possible to test the significance of such correlations? If such correlations are not significant, the discussion of them would be meaningless.

10.Line 385: Is this “Figure 3”, not “Figure 2”?

11.There are many sentence structure, grammatical and careless mistakes throughout the manuscript. Professional editing should help improve the readability of this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your accurate remarks. We have worked very hard to improve the publication. Thank you for your additional time.

1. Line 33: Remove “at the same time” in the first sentence of the Introduction section.

Improved

2. Line 39: What is this “survey”? If it is the one mentioned on line 36, please make a better structure from line 36 to line 41.

Improved

3. Lines 68-79: It is better for you to cite a definition of “investor” from the existing literature.

In this case we decide to leave this general term as it does not require some special explanation.

4. Lines 81-83: Again, it is better for you to cite a definition of “behaviour” from the existing literature.

 

In this case we decide to leave this general term as it does not require some special explanation.

5. No research questions were stated. You should state your research questions before Section 3.

 

It was done.

6. You have two Figure 1. They are simply two ways to express the percentage distribution of the eight trait combinations. Please remove one of the two figures.

 

We decided to leave both pictures because the Figure 1. Proportions of dimensions of the investor personality profiles among students and errors of inference,

 

7. Line 331: Although PFR ranked first, it only covered about a third and PNR lags only 0.3%. So, you should not say that “most of the students” belong to the PFR type.

Improved

8. Lines 336-341: What are the error margins for estimation? You should describe it clearly for readers who may not well versed in statistics. In addition, I would like to see a table with confidence intervals. This would help readers understand more about the lower and upper bounds of each percentage.

Thank you very much for your remark. We have re-written the sentence as follows.

‘Similarly as above, errors of inference or boundaries of confidence intervals that estimate the magnitudes of each group with precision 95 % are as follows’

9. Line 384: The discussion of the correlations found in Figure 3 seems interesting. Is it possible to test the significance of such correlations? If such correlations are not significant, the discussion of them would be meaningless.

 

Thank you very much for your remark. We agree that the term correlation was chosen incorrectly. We have re-written the sentence as follows.

‘Relation between investor types and green investment preferences can be observed in Figure 2’.

10.Line 385: Is this “Figure 3”, not “Figure 2”?

     Improved

11.There are many sentences structure, grammatical and careless mistakes throughout the manuscript. Professional editing should help improve the readability of this manuscript.

It will be done at the end.

Best regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed some of my concerns. However, if possible, I would still like them to revise their manuscript according to my other comments that they ignored.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your accurate remarks. We have worked very hard to improve the publication – the text of the second revision in green. Thank you for your additional time.

1. Line 33: Remove “at the same time” in the first sentence of the Introduction section.

Improved

2. Line 39: What is this “survey”? If it is the one mentioned on line 36, please make a better structure from line 36 to line 41.

Improved

3. Lines 68-79: It is better for you to cite a definition of “investor” from the existing literature.

 

Improved

We have checked reliable dictionaries and ‘investor’ definition is very common and well known. Deeper analysis will lead us to a linguistic analysis, which is not necessary in this article. We deleted the term ‘investor’ as it does not add scientific and innovative value in this article. Other wise we should go to the discussion about investor types but it is not necessary in this article.

a person who puts money into something in order to make a profit or get an advantage https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/investor

a person or an organization that invests money in something (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/investor?q=investor)

4. Lines 81-83: Again, it is better for you to cite a definition of “behaviour” from the existing literature.

Improved

The analysis of the term ‘behaviour’ is more related to psychological direction of research. We deleted the term as we do not want to go deeper the wide discussion which is not necessary in this particular case.

the way that somebody behaves, especially towards other people (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/behaviour?q=behaviour)

the way that someone behaves: (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/behaviour)

 

5. No research questions were stated. You should state your research questions before Section 3.

 

It was done.

 

6. You have two Figure 1. They are simply two ways to express the percentage distribution of the eight trait combinations. Please remove one of the two figures.

Improved

We removed Figure 2 and amended the text accordingly.

 

7. Line 331: Although PFR ranked first, it only covered about a third and PNR lags only 0.3%. So, you should not say that “most of the students” belong to the PFR type.

Improved

8. Lines 336-341: What are the error margins for estimation? You should describe it clearly for readers who may not well versed in statistics. In addition, I would like to see a table with confidence intervals. This would help readers understand more about the lower and upper bounds of each percentage

 

Improved

Thank you very much for your remark. We have re-written the sentence as follows.

‘Similarly as above, errors of inference or boundaries of confidence intervals that estimate the magnitudes of each group with precision 95 % are as follows’

9. Line 384: The discussion of the correlations found in Figure 3 seems interesting. Is it possible to test the significance of such correlations? If such correlations are not significant, the discussion of them would be meaningless.

Improved

Thank you very much for your remark. We agree that the term correlation was chosen incorrectly. We have re-written the sentence as follows.

‘Relation between investor types and green investment preferences can be observed in Figure 2’.

10.Line 385: Is this “Figure 3”, not “Figure 2”?

     Improved

11.There are many sentences structure, grammatical and careless mistakes throughout the manuscript. Professional editing should help improve the readability of this manuscript.

Improved

 

The professional editor revised the English language of the article.

Best regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf