Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript, Taking a consumer-led approach to identify key characteristics of an effective ecolabelling scheme, the authors need to improve the manuscript for further consideration by addressing minor revisions. The novelty of the work is not clear. You need to classify the related parameters and conditions clearly for better understanding. Some items in Figure 3 are hazy. I recommend highlighting the environmental impact related to the development and applications of sustainable composite materials. You may consider:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921002317
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsomega.3c00086
The provoded tables have more detailed data; it is better to conclude them to give direct findings with the related references.

Author Response

Please find our responses in the file uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I have evaluated the paper entitled “Taking a consumer-led approach to identify key characteristics 2 of an effective ecolabelling scheme”, and I find the topic is very interesting and trendy.

However, there are some issues that you could address before the paper can be published in the journal of Sustainability

1.      Abstract.

Could you clearly articulate the method that the paper uses?

2.      Introduction

The gap is well-presented, as the main concerns. However, some information is missing. For instance, is it about a global labelling accepted in all countries? Who carries the responsibility to follow? Governments? Or companies? Who issues those labels?  

3.      Material and methods

To continue my remarques of the introduction, where was the study conducted? How were the focus groups recruited (worldwide or only at the mentioned university)?

What is demographic description of each focus group?

n=6-8 participants per FG isn’t it too low? How did you define that it would be a good FG?

4.      Results

Page 10: Novice and Aware participant groups were similar in demographic composition. 308 Novice participants (n = 3 male, 8 female) were 21 to 63 yrs old (mean 44) and Aware 309 participants (n = 5 male, 5 female) were 26 to 63 yrs old (mean 42). Only 3 participants 310 earned over NZ$120K and notably, in both groups, most had a graduate or postgraduate 311 degree.

This information does not correspond to the information in the previous sections.

 

Point 3.1.: isn’t it obvious that the Novis group had no considerations? Wasn’t that the criteria for selecting the participants of this group? What does the comparison say?

I found that there are too many tables with verbatim examples. Even though they summarize the results, some could be moved into the appendix section.  

5. Discussion

What about the generalization of the results? As it is unclear what market the research is done in, it is difficult to say if the study results can be implemented.

Author Response

Please find our response in the file uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf