Environmental Regulations, Green Marketing, and Consumers’ Green Product Purchasing Intention: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your submission. I found your submission contemporary and relevant. Nevertheless, there are a few aspects of your manuscript that require your attention:

- Abstract. Please rephrase sentences that possess certain GenAI flavour. For example, "To delve into the relationship among environmental regulations, green marketing, and the consumers' green product purchasing intention, this paper embarked on an in-depth investigation." is a typical sentence with no real value using typical GenAI phrases.

Another example is the following sentence: "Among these, the green marketing plays a pivotal role." - This is an example of a very bold statement. However, if your focus would be on some other influencing factor, I could bet GenAI would use the same statement. Please be more critical of AI-based tools and re-do the abstract.

Lines 36-46 - Three or four sentences containing bold statements but no references to support them.

Lines 48-49—You discuss increasing demand for eco-friendly products, but it is not clear in which market(s), and there are no references.

Lines 56-60—There is a certain level of redundancy when discussing green marketing and purchase intention.

Lines 62-64 - In Norway, consumers switched to EVs, not the "local car industry".

Lines 90-103 - I would advise discussing the paper contribution at the end, not in the introduction section.

Literature review—This section is well structured but requires more coherent referencing. Again, several bold statements require proper referencing. So, this should be re-done. Just one example: "The consumers' green product purchasing intention refers to consumers' inclination when making purchases of goods and services. The enhancement of this inclination also prompts businesses to offer more green products, thus forming a virtuous cycle." I will not comment on the writing style, but this here can/should be based on some previous studies. There are so many similar examples here that require your attention.

Furthermore, sections 2.1., 2.2. and 2.3 conclude with "to sum up" or "in conclusion", which is uncommon in a literature review. There is no need for this kind of "conclusion" so often in the manuscript. There are similar situations in the section 3.

Lines 123-124 - I am not sure if the choice of [7] is ok for this statement. The study you are referring to focuses on business performance, not on green product supply.

H1b - It is not completely clear what "impact on green products" means. Are you referring here to product design or something else?

Figure 1 is very useful in providing an overview of your research study. There are just a few things to be corrected here (i.e. "Environmental regular" and "advertisement").

The statistical analysis looks solid and comprehensive. The relationships between the various variables (ER, GM, GPI) could be more clearly articulated, particularly in explaining how different components of green marketing mediate the effects of environmental regulations. While robustness tests are mentioned, providing more detail on how these were conducted and what specific methods were used could enhance the credibility of the findings.

To conclude, this paper has potential. However, certain systematic issues require your attention. First, too many bold statements are in your paper without proper citations. Furthermore, a certain level of redundancy can be noticed where almost the same statements are repeated several times within the section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The form used in the survey has been adequately validated. However, the sampling system used has not been specified and the sample size achieved seems smaller than would be necessary to cover such a large geographical area. It would be useful to add a fact sheet describing the details of the survey. It is necessary to indicate the details of the survey, especially the sampling system and the dates of data collection. It should be justified whether sufficient responses were obtained in each of the three regions analyzed.

It has not been analyzed, as it would have been interesting, the difference between the presence or non-presence of the regulation or that of different regulations. When it is a mandatory regulation, it is clear that this regulation conditions the development of marketing variables and that these, in turn, produce effects on consumer behavior. However, in my opinion, it does not seem to have been sufficiently demonstrated or argued that it is the regulation that improves the purchase intention of end consumers compared to the results that would have been obtained in the absence of this regulation. If these results were obtained, they should be better explained in the text.

As a further improvement, it is suggested that the images included in Illustration 1 be eliminated as ornamentation, as they are not necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the refined version of your manuscript. Improvement is obvious, yet there are still some issues that require improvement:

* Abstract - I appreciate the revision. The first three sentences have a particular logical connection, but the writing style does not reflect it. So, I would advise rephrasing these three sentences and make them more connected. Instead of numbering the three main conclusions, rephrase this section and create a more natural flow. The paper's aim statement should be slightly modified to address the expected outcome and not just the method.

Lines 51-53 "An increasing number of consumers are now focusing on the environmental footprint of products. They are also willing to pay premium prices for eco-friendly alternatives." - This statement should be based on some market report or similar; hence, there should be a reference.

Lines 84-65—This is not a very common way of elaborating the paper structure. Instead of a numbered list, just make it more narrative. For example, "The following section... In the third section,..."

Last time, I tried to point out specific issues with the formulation of the hypotheses. Each hypothesis should be a clear and precise claim.

For example, H1a seems quite clear. "H1a: Environmental regulations show a positive influence on green brand image.",  - I think it is obvious that this is about the impact on consumers and how they perceive the green brand image.

In H2a, you say  "positive impact on green products". Green products are not a person, so how something can impact them is unclear. It is not clear which aspect of "green products". Is it on the way how producers design green products? Is this about the consumer perspective? So, it is still quite unclear. I believe regulations dictate how green products should be designed, what they should contain, etc.

H1c - On green advertising practices? Again, some additional context is needed.

H1d "Green recycling"? Is there also blue recycling? Additionally, the context is not clear here. Is it about the recycling practice of consumers? Or are you talking about the recycling system in a country?

On the other hand, H2 is clear and precise, along with H3a-d.

There is an issue with the positioning of Figure 1 within the document.

Lines 425-426 - "an extensive amount of surveys" - This is vague and inconsistent with academic standards. It would help if you were precise with the sample size and/or the number of surveys.

I suggest revising 4.2.1, Questionaire survey section. You could also consider changing the title (e.g., Sample and sampling procedure).

Overall, I suggest changing the writing style a bit and eliminating numbered lists that appear throughout the manuscript (e.g., in 6.3 and 6.4).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences require attention to sound more meaningful, and the writing style should be improved as well (i.e., many numbered lists within paragraphs are unnecessary).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors My decision is that the article is publishable, although with a critique of its content. The new file still lacks a justification of the sampling system used to select the 622 individuals to whom the questionnaire was distributed. Therefore, it is not credible that the sample obtained can be considered representative of a population whose dimensions the authors still do not report.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with your latest revision.