Review Reports - Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Sustainable Coffee: Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Fairtrade and UTZ Certification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is written on an urgent topic and is interesting for a reader. It analyses consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable food, specifically the coffee industry's production. The authors analyze in detail the peculiarities of sustainability issues in this industry and the approach to sustainable certification, which is common in this sphere.

This article appeals to me because of its results of primary research, the experiment nature of the conducted investigation, and the valuable recommendations of the authors in the Conclusion section. It is well-structured and scientifically sound. However, the manuscript has some drawbacks:

1) The abstract is too short. Expand it with a more detailed presentation of the scientific methodology of the research and its novelty.

2) Please specify the difference between labeled and conventional coffee. Conventional coffee can't be labelled?

3) Line 132: “Fairtrade certification has a negative impact on prices”. Explain this statement.

4) The online survey for the authors’ study was conducted in Madrid. Why do the authors choose only this city? Regarding online surveys, the geographical area of respondents could be very diverse.

5) Figure 1 is not precise. Why is the price for coffee with only one certificate higher than for coffee with two certifications? What is the objective explanation of the higher price for coffee with only one certificate?

6) Table 4. Check all sums in columns. It is not 100 almost in all cases.

7) Line 289: “Despite the educational background, the level of knowledge regarding sustainable coffee is perceived as low, with 61.9% of respondents indicating unfamiliarity with certified coffee”. It should be explained how the authors detected it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1) Table 1. Remove text written not in English.

2) Table 1 – Specialty coffee. Seems to be a mistake.

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Consumer Willingness-To-Pay For Sustainable Coffee: Evidence From A Choice Experiment On Fairtrade And Utz Certification” for publication in Sustainability Journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

CONSUMER WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR SUSTAINABLE 3 COFFEE: EVIDENCE FROM A CHOICE EXPERIMENT ON FAIRTRADE AND UTZ CERTIFICATION

I notice that this study has many shortcomings so I recommend authors address these suggestions, so the study can enhance its clarity, validity, and relevance for both academic and practical audiences.

1. Abstract: The abstract should be revised to align with the research objective and statistical results. It's important for the abstract to provide a clear overview of the study's purpose and key findings.

2. Introduction: It is suggested to add references to support statements made in lines 22-27 of the introduction. Additionally, the introduction should highlight the research contributions and innovative ideas developed in the study. Explaining why the study is significant for policymakers and researchers will add depth to the introduction.

3. Results Section: There seems to be a discrepancy between the number of survey respondents (519) and the number of observations (13248) especially (Table 5. Results of Conditional Logit approach model and willingness to pay) mentioned in the analysis. It is crucial to verify the results presented and ensure accuracy. Reanalyzing the data with authentic evidence will reinforce the study's findings.

4. Choice Experiment Approach: The review acknowledges that the choice experiment approach aligns with the theory of consumption, which is a positive aspect of the study. This alignment with theoretical frameworks strengthens the study's methodology.

5. Discussion Section: It is important to include a robust discussion that explores the theoretical and managerial implications of the study's findings. This section will help connect the results to existing literature and practical applications.

6. Policy Implications: The authors failed to develop policy sections. The inclusion of policy implications is crucial for research studies, as it demonstrates the real-world relevance of the findings. It is recommended to highlight significant implications for policymakers to ensure the study's impact.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper's topic is interesting as it explores specific cues of packaging, specifically the UTZ label, but it has significant limitations. Firstly, while you talk about experimentation, there is no experiment, just an online questionnaire with presenting image options.

Also, in real life and experiment, consumers make choices based on many other cues, not only the ones you presented. The methods are simple, and overall, it does not prove much. Is there a control group or variables?

Secondly, the paper is not following the standard outline; all the literature and hypotheses are in section one, it should be explored in more depth in sections 2 and 3.

The literature table should be in section 2, and only in english language.You only have 49 references, and no support for other CSR initiatives how they support buying intention such as in the paper which you can examine Influence of virtual CSR co-creation on the purchase intention of green products under the heterogeneity of experience value.

Generally, an experiment should be conducted to merit publication. There is necessity for a more rigorous experimental approach to support the paper's claim.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

some parts left in spanish in table 1, generally needs proofreading

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Comments:

The paper addresses an interesting and relevant research question about consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for sustainability certifications like Fairtrade and UTZ for coffee in the Spanish market. Understanding consumer demand for sustainable products is important.

The methodology using a choice experiment survey seems appropriate and is well described. Using a conditional logit model to analyze the choice data is standard practice.

The results showing positive willingness-to-pay for both the Fairtrade and UTZ certifications among Spanish consumers are clearly presented.

Strengths:

Clear motivation for the research question and its relevance.

Solid choice experiment methodology following best practices.

Analysis of an important consumer market (Spain) for certified sustainable coffee.

Comparison of preferences for two major sustainability certifications.

Potential Weaknesses/Areas for Improvement:

The sample is quite skewed towards younger adults (56% are 18-34 years old). While the rationale for this is provided, it may limit the generalizability of the results.

More discussion comparing the results to previous literature findings would strengthen the paper.

The introduction and literature review could provide more context on the coffee market, sustainability issues, and certifications in Spain specifically.

Some parts of the methods section could be more clearly explained for a general reader.

Suggestions:

Consider a bit more motivation and background information in the introduction on the Spanish coffee market and sustainability issues.

Expand the discussion comparing these results to previous literature, especially any other Spanish consumer studies.

Clarify any unclear points in the methods section through additional explanations.

Acknowledge the limitation of the younger skewed sample in the discussion.

Expand the concluding section discussing implications for coffee companies, policymakers, etc.

Overall, this appears to be a solid and relevant piece of research that could be strengthened with some additional polish and context in the introduction, methods, and discussion sections. The core analysis and findings seem robust. I hope these suggestions are useful for improving the paper. Let me know if you need any clarification or have additional questions!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think the English needs some fine work

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper could be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

we would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to you for your invaluable contributions to the review process of our article, CONSUMER WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR SUSTAINABLE COFFEE: EVIDENCE FROM A CHOICE EXPERIMENT ON FAIRTRADE AND UTZ CERTIFICATION." Your insightful comments, suggestions, and guidance have been instrumental in shaping the final version of the manuscript.

We are truly appreciative of the time and effort you dedicated to thoroughly evaluating the content and providing constructive feedback, which undoubtedly enhanced the quality of the paper. Your expertise and attention to detail have been immensely beneficial, and we are grateful for the opportunity to have benefited from your expertise.

Thank you once again for your invaluable support and for recognizing the merit of our work.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors stated in Table 5 that the total number of observations in the study was 13548, whereas the number of respondents mentioned in the abstract was 547. This discrepancy may be causing confusion as to the intention of the authors in this study. Additionally, sociodemographic characteristics were calculated based on the 547 respondents.

2. It seems that the analysis conducted in this study may not be comprehensive enough for a scientific study. It would be advisable for the authors to perform a more rigorous analysis and clearly explain why the number of observations differs from the respondents in this study. Clarifying these points will strengthen the scientific validity of the study.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments on the manuscript “Consumer Willingness-To-Pay For Sustainable Coffee: Evidence From A Choice Experiment On Fairtrade And Utz Certification” for publication in Sustainability Journal.
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the comments.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper was somewhat improved. Some issues remain unchanged>

1. abstract is too short and lacks standard elements

2. introduction is too long, while the materials and methods is a mandatory section of this journal, it does not mean that in between intro and materials should not be an additional section of literature review. This type of article needs it. You can organize the content accordingly

2/ the contributions to the literature is questionable and should be emphisized, the discussion that usually does that is very thin

3. add the limitation of choice experiment in the conclusion and future studies of experiments

some parts of the paper have higher similarity, so those can be rephrased

Comments on the Quality of English Language

fine

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the revised version which the authors addressed very well, my decision is to accept the revised version of the paper. However, I have no additional comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none