Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a highly complete article, but there are a few places that need revision before formal publication:

In the abstract, only the conclusions need to be summarized; there's no need to write specific coefficients or values.

There are too many keywords; it's suggested to reduce them to five.

The introduction also has problems. The introduction comes before the entire article; how can you present conclusions when your article hasn't been done yet?

The article lacks a literature review section. In fact, many existing literatures already cover your research; please add this section to highlight your contribution.

You wrote a lot later on, but it's all unnecessary. Please write according to the conclusions (what you found), contributions (what your research contributes to theory and reality), and limitations. This will make your article's logic clearer.

There are too many references; please reduce them.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such comprehensive and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your assessment that this is "a highly complete article" and your specific guidance on structural improvements needed before formal publication. Your detailed recommendations have helped us significantly improve the manuscript's organization, focus, and adherence to academic standards. Please find our detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Question	Reviewer's Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Is the work a significant contribution to the field?	Yes	Thank you for recognizing this as "a highly complete article" with significant research value.
Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?	Must be improved	We have completely restructured the manuscript according to your recommendations (see detailed responses below).
Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?	Yes	We appreciate your confidence in the research quality while noting the structural improvements needed.
Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?	Must be improved	We have reduced references from 177 to 48 and added a comprehensive Literature Review section.
Is the English used correct and readable?	Yes	Thank you for this positive assessment of the manuscript's clarity.

3. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:

"In the abstract, only the conclusions need to be summarized; there's no need to write specific coefficients or values."

Response 1:

We completely agree with this recommendation and have thoroughly revised the abstract to remove all statistical details.

Specific changes made:

REMOVED from abstract:

• "β = 0.775, p < 0.001"
• "accounting for 21.5% of the effect"
• "R² = .428 for Green Purchase Intention"
• All other statistical coefficients and p-values

REPLACED with conclusion-focused statements:

• "The findings demonstrate a significant positive relationship between green brand positioning and purchase intention"
• "Self-image congruence partially mediated this relationship"
• "Product involvement level positively moderated the mediation effect"

Location in revised manuscript: Abstract, Page 1, Lines 15-35

Result: The abstract now provides clear, accessible conclusions without statistical detail, focusing on substantive findings and practical implications as recommended.

Comment 2:

"There are too many keywords; it's suggested to reduce them to five."

Response 2:

We have reduced the keywords from 9 to exactly 5 as recommended, focusing on the most essential terms.

Changes made:

BEFORE (9 keywords): Green brand positioning; Purchase intention; Self-image congruence; Functional congruence; Green marketing; Consumer behavior; Environmental consciousness; Product involvement; Green technology products

AFTER (5 keywords): Green brand positioning; Purchase intention; Self-image congruence; Consumer behavior; Green marketing

Selection rationale: We retained the five most central concepts that directly capture our theoretical framework, main constructs, and research domain for optimal indexing and discoverability.

Location in revised manuscript: Keywords section, Page 1, Line 36

Comment 3:

"The introduction also has problems. The introduction comes before the entire article; how can you present conclusions when your article hasn't been done yet?"

Response 3:

You are absolutely correct, and we have identified and removed all instances where the introduction prematurely presented study findings.

Specific content REMOVED from introduction:

Deleted premature findings statements:

• "Our findings reveal that green brand positioning exerts significant positive influence on purchase intention (β = 0.775, p < 0.001)"
• "with self-image congruence accounting for 21.5% of this relationship through partial mediation"
• "Functional congruence similarly demonstrates significant mediating effects"
• "product involvement level positively moderates the self-image congruence pathway"
• "These findings advance theoretical understanding of green consumer behaviour"

REPLACED with appropriate research objectives:

• Clear statement of research gaps and theoretical questions
• Proper setup of research objectives without revealing outcomes
• Enhanced focus on the theoretical rationale and study rationale

Location in revised manuscript: Section 1, Pages 2-4, Lines 45-120

Result: The introduction now follows proper logical sequence, establishing theoretical foundation and research questions without premature results disclosure.

Comment 4:

"The article lacks a literature review section. In fact, many existing literatures already cover your research; please add this section to highlight your contribution."

Response 4:

We completely agree with this essential requirement and have added a comprehensive Literature Review section that clearly positions our unique contribution.

NEW SECTION 2 ADDED: "Literature Review and Theoretical Development"

2.1. Green Brand Positioning in Consumer Behavior (Pages 4-5, Lines 125-155)

• Reviews existing research on green positioning strategies
• Documents mixed empirical results in current literature
• Establishes need for nuanced understanding of effectiveness mechanisms

2.2. Self-Congruence Theory in Environmental Marketing (Pages 5-6, Lines 156-185)

• Provides theoretical foundation for identity-based pathways
• Reviews self-congruence applications across product categories
• Identifies gap in green technology contexts

2.3. Functional Congruence and Performance Perceptions (Pages 6-7, Lines 186-215)

• Addresses sustainability liability literature
• Reviews performance concerns in green marketing
• Establishes theoretical foundation for utilitarian pathways

2.4. Moderating Factors: Involvement and Choice Context (Pages 7-8, Lines 216-245)

• Reviews product involvement effects in consumer behavior
• Examines choice optionality implications from choice architecture research
• Establishes theoretical basis for moderation hypotheses

2.5. Research Gaps and Theoretical Contribution (Pages 8-9, Lines 246-275)

• Explicitly identifies three key gaps our study addresses:
1. Lack of integrated dual-mediation models in green marketing
2. Limited understanding of moderating factors in green consumer behavior
3. Insufficient focus on technology product categories
• Clearly articulates how our research extends beyond existing literature

Total addition: Approximately 1,500 words of comprehensive theoretical positioning

Result: This section demonstrates thorough knowledge of existing literature while clearly establishing our unique contribution to the field.

Comment 5:

"You wrote a lot later on, but it's all unnecessary. Please write according to the conclusions (what you found), contributions (what your research contributes to theory and reality), and limitations. This will make your article's logic clearer."

Response 5:

You are absolutely right about the need for clearer focus. We have completely restructured the Discussion section around exactly these three elements.

MAJOR RESTRUCTURING of Section 5:

BEFORE: ~4,000 words of lengthy, unfocused discussion with excessive elaboration

AFTER: ~1,500 words (62% reduction) organized precisely as you recommended:

5.1. Key Findings - CONCLUSIONS (what we found) (Pages 13-14, Lines 350-385)

• Clear presentation of main empirical findings
• Direct statement of relationships discovered
• Quantified effects and their practical meaning

5.2. Theoretical Contributions - CONTRIBUTIONS (what this contributes to theory) (Pages 14-15, Lines 386-420)

• Three explicit theoretical contributions:
1. Dual-Process Model Development
2. Boundary Conditions Identification
3. Congruence Theory Integration

5.3. Practical Implications - CONTRIBUTIONS (what this contributes to reality) (Pages 15-16, Lines 421-455)

• Strategic positioning recommendations with specific industry examples
• Segmentation and targeting guidance
• Choice architecture considerations for practitioners

5.4. Limitations - LIMITATIONS (Pages 16-17, Lines 456-490)

• Honest assessment of sample constraints
• Methodological limitations acknowledgment
• Contextual boundaries of findings

5.5. Future Research Directions (Page 17, Lines 491-510)

• Specific recommendations addressing identified limitations

5.6. Conclusions (Page 17, Lines 511-525)

• Concise final synthesis

ELIMINATED: Redundant theoretical discussions, excessive interpretation, unnecessary elaboration

Result: Crystal clear logic focused exactly on conclusions, contributions, and limitations as requested.

Comment 6:

"There are too many references; please reduce them."

Response 6:

We have substantially reduced the reference list while maintaining scholarly rigor.

Reference reduction:

BEFORE: 177 references (excessive)

AFTER: 48 references (73% reduction)

Reduction strategy applied:

• Eliminated: Duplicate citations for the same concepts
• Removed: Tangential references not directly supporting arguments
• Deleted: Excessive citation chains and redundant theoretical support
• Retained: Seminal theoretical works (Sirgy, Zaichkowsky, Hayes)
• Kept: Most relevant recent empirical studies in green marketing
• Maintained: Essential methodological citations

Reference organization: Now organized by manuscript section for easy verification of relevance

Result: Focused reference list containing only the most essential citations while maintaining comprehensive theoretical foundation.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

No specific comments were provided regarding English language quality.

5. Additional Clarifications

Summary of Major Structural Improvements:

1. Abstract Revision: Removed all statistical details, focused on conclusions only
2. Keywords Optimization: Reduced from 9 to 5 essential terms
3. Introduction Correction: Eliminated premature findings presentation
4. Literature Review Addition: Comprehensive new 1,500-word section establishing contribution
5. Discussion Restructuring: Organized around conclusions/contributions/limitations (62% length reduction)
6. Reference Optimization: Reduced from 177 to 48 most relevant citations

Manuscript Statistics:

• Total word count reduction: ~25%
• Improved organization: 6 clearly structured sections
• Enhanced focus: Elimination of unnecessary content
• Better positioning: Clear theoretical contribution established

Result: A more focused, logically organized, and academically sound manuscript that addresses every structural concern you identified while maintaining the research quality you recognized.

Confidence Level: These revisions have produced a manuscript with significantly improved clarity, focus, and adherence to academic publication standards while preserving the complete research contribution you acknowledged.

Thank you again for this invaluable guidance. Your structural recommendations have transformed this into a much stronger, more publishable manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a rigorous and well-articulated study on the influence of green brand positioning on consumer purchase intention, enriched by the dual mediation model involving self-image and functional congruence. The theoretical grounding is robust, drawing from established frameworks in consumer psychology and green marketing literature. The methodology is clearly explained, with strong justification for sample selection and appropriate use of structural equation modeling and moderated mediation analysis. The empirical findings are compelling and thoroughly discussed in relation to the hypotheses, providing significant contributions to the understanding of green consumer behavior. To enhance clarity and utility for broader readership, consider the following:

1. While the discussion does touch on strategy, more detailed examples or case-based applications of the findings could strengthen the paper’s relevance for practitioners.
2. You might consider a more explicit comparison between the strength of symbolic (self-image) and functional (performance) pathways to reinforce the dual-process model.
3. Although limitations are addressed, adding further discussion on the implications of using a sample limited to educated, tech-savvy U.S. consumers would help contextualize generalizability.

Overall, this is a strong manuscript with valuable insights and high potential for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive and positive review of our manuscript. We are delighted by your assessment that this is "a rigorous and well-articulated study" with "robust theoretical grounding" and "compelling empirical findings." Your recognition of the study's "significant contributions to the understanding of green consumer behavior" and "high potential for publication" is greatly appreciated. We have carefully considered your three enhancement suggestions and have implemented revisions to address each point. Please find our detailed responses below and the corresponding improvements highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Question	Reviewer's Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Is the work a significant contribution to the field?	Yes	Thank you for recognizing our dual mediation model as a significant contribution to green consumer behavior understanding.
Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?	Yes	We appreciate your positive assessment of the study's organization and comprehensive presentation.
Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?	Yes	Thank you for confirming the scientific rigor of our methodology and analytical approach.
Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?	Yes	We appreciate your acknowledgment of our robust theoretical grounding in established frameworks.
Is the English used correct and readable?	Yes	Thank you for this positive assessment of clarity and readability.

3. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Assessment:

"The manuscript presents a rigorous and well-articulated study on the influence of green brand positioning on consumer purchase intention, enriched by the dual mediation model involving self-image and functional congruence. The theoretical grounding is robust, drawing from established frameworks in consumer psychology and green marketing literature. The methodology is clearly explained, with strong justification for sample selection and appropriate use of structural equation modeling and moderated mediation analysis. The empirical findings are compelling and thoroughly discussed in relation to the hypotheses, providing significant contributions to the understanding of green consumer behavior."

Response:

We are extremely grateful for this comprehensive positive assessment of our research. Your recognition of the dual mediation model's contribution and the methodological rigor validates our theoretical and empirical approach. Thank you for acknowledging the significance of our findings for green consumer behavior understanding.

Enhancement Suggestion 1:

"While the discussion does touch on strategy, more detailed examples or case-based applications of the findings could strengthen the paper's relevance for practitioners."

Response 1:

We completely agree with this excellent suggestion and have significantly enhanced the practical implications section with specific industry examples and case-based applications.

Major revisions made:

Added Specific Industry Examples (Section 5.3, Page 14, Lines 385-395):

Tesla Case Application: "For example, Tesla successfully combines environmental identity appeals with performance superiority claims, demonstrating how brands can enhance both self-congruence and functional congruence simultaneously."

Apple Case Application: "Similarly, Apple's environmental initiatives communicate both innovation leadership and functional excellence, positioning environmental responsibility as a source of competitive advantage rather than performance compromise."

Patagonia Case Application: "Companies like Patagonia demonstrate how environmental self-congruence can drive strong consumer loyalty and purchase intentions through authentic brand narratives that facilitate identity construction."

Enhanced Strategic Framework (Section 5.3, Pages 14-15, Lines 396-410):

• Integrated Positioning Strategy: Specific recommendations for combining identity-based and performance-based communications
• Segmentation Applications: Practical guidance for targeting high-involvement segments
• Choice Architecture: Actionable insights for different competitive contexts

Practitioner Toolkit (Section 5.3, Page 15, Lines 411-420):

• Specific communication strategies for different market conditions
• Implementation guidelines for brand positioning campaigns
• Measurement approaches for tracking dual-pathway effectiveness

These additions provide concrete, actionable insights that practitioners can directly apply to their green marketing strategies.

Enhancement Suggestion 2:

"You might consider a more explicit comparison between the strength of symbolic (self-image) and functional (performance) pathways to reinforce the dual-process model."

Response 2:

This is an excellent suggestion that strengthens our theoretical contribution. We have added explicit pathway comparison throughout the manuscript.

Major revisions made:

Quantitative Pathway Comparison (Section 5.1, Page 13, Lines 350-360): "Self-image congruence serves as the primary mediator, accounting for 21.5% of the total effect (β = .194), while functional congruence contributes 15.7% of the total effect (β = .157). This comparison demonstrates that symbolic identity-based pathways exert stronger influence than utilitarian performance-based pathways in green technology contexts."

Theoretical Implications Discussion (Section 5.2, Page 13, Lines 365-375): "The stronger symbolic pathway suggests that environmental consumption serves important identity-signalling functions that exceed purely utilitarian considerations. However, the significant functional pathway confirms that performance perceptions remain crucial for green product adoption, challenging deficit models that emphasize performance trade-offs."

Strategic Implications of Pathway Strengths (Section 5.3, Page 14, Lines 380-390): "The relative strength of identity-based pathways suggests that marketing communications should prioritize environmental self-congruence appeals while ensuring functional credibility. The dual-pathway structure indicates that successful green positioning requires simultaneous attention to both symbolic and utilitarian motivations."

This explicit comparison reinforces our dual-process model and provides clearer guidance for both theory and practice.

Enhancement Suggestion 3:

"Although limitations are addressed, adding further discussion on the implications of using a sample limited to educated, tech-savvy U.S. consumers would help contextualize generalizability."

Response 3:

We agree this is crucial for properly contextualizing our findings and have substantially expanded the generalizability discussion.

Major revisions made:

Enhanced Sample Limitations Discussion (Section 5.4, Page 15, Lines 430-450):

Educational Bias Implications: "The high education requirement (minimum bachelor's degree) may overrepresent highly educated perspectives while overlooking the attitudes and behaviours of less-educated or lower-income consumer segments who represent significant portions of most consumer markets. This demographic constraint is particularly important given that environmental attitudes and purchasing power may vary substantially across socioeconomic groups."

Geographic and Cultural Constraints: "The US-only sample constrains generalizability to international markets where cultural values, economic conditions, and environmental priorities may differ significantly. Green consumer behavior patterns documented in individualistic cultures may not apply to collectivistic contexts where social norms and group influences play larger roles."

Technology Context Implications: "The focus on technology-experienced consumers in high-involvement product categories may limit applicability to other product domains where environmental and functional considerations have different relative importance. Consumer decision-making processes may vary substantially across product categories with different purchase frequencies and risk profiles."

Socioeconomic Generalizability Concerns (Section 5.4, Page 15, Lines 451-465): "Environmental purchasing patterns may be particularly sensitive to income constraints, making our findings most applicable to middle-to-upper income segments with discretionary spending capacity. The intention-behavior gap may be particularly pronounced among lower-income consumers who support environmental goals but face financial constraints in purchase decisions."

Future Research Contextualization (Section 5.5, Page 16, Lines 470-485):

• Specific recommendations for diverse demographic studies
• Cross-cultural research priorities
• Socioeconomic validation needs
• Product category extension requirements

This enhanced discussion provides comprehensive contextualization of our findings' boundaries and applicability.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

No specific comments were provided regarding English language quality.

5. Additional Clarifications

Summary of Enhancements Made:

1. Practitioner Relevance Enhancement:
• Added Tesla, Apple, and Patagonia case applications
• Developed specific strategic frameworks and implementation guidelines
• Created actionable toolkit for marketing practitioners
2. Dual-Process Model Reinforcement:
• Provided explicit quantitative comparison of pathway strengths (21.5% vs 15.7%)
• Enhanced theoretical discussion of symbolic vs utilitarian mechanisms
• Clarified strategic implications of pathway differences
3. Generalizability Contextualization:
• Comprehensive discussion of educational, geographic, and cultural constraints
• Analysis of socioeconomic implications for findings applicability
• Detailed future research framework for validation across diverse contexts

Overall Impact: These revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript's practical relevance, theoretical clarity, and scholarly transparency while maintaining the robust empirical foundation you recognized.

Confidence in Contribution: Your positive assessment reinforces our confidence that this research makes meaningful contributions to green marketing theory and practice. The enhancements you suggested have made these contributions even more accessible and actionable for diverse audiences.

Thank you again for this encouraging and constructive review. Your suggestions have elevated the manuscript's quality and impact potential considerably.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the influence of green brand positioning on consumer purchase intentions for green technology products, addressing the persistent "attitude-behaviour gap"—the disconnect between consumers’ stated environmental preferences and their actual purchasing behaviours. The study is theoretically anchored in self-congruence theory, which posits that consumers prefer brands aligning with their self-image, and functional congruence theory, emphasizing the importance of utilitarian product attributes. It also explores the moderating roles of product involvement (the personal relevance of a product) and product optionality (the range of available choices) in shaping these relationships1. Utilizing a cross-sectional survey of 354 US-based, highly educated, environmentally aware technology consumers recruited via the Prolific platform, the authors employ structural equation modelling to test their hypotheses. The findings reveal that green brand positioning has a significant positive effect on purchase intention (β = 0.775, p < 0.001), with self-image congruence partially mediating this relationship (accounting for 21.5% of the effect), and functional congruence also playing a significant mediating role1. Product involvement positively moderates the effect of self-image congruence, while product optionality negatively moderates the impact of functional congruence. 

Some weaknesses of this paper are as follows:

1. The sample is limited to US residents aged 18–35 with at least a bachelor’s degree and experience with technology products, which restricts generalizability to broader or more diverse consumer populations.
2. The study’s cross-sectional nature precludes causal inference and does not account for changes in attitudes or behaviours over time.
3. Reliance on self-reported data introduces potential biases such as social desirability and recall bias, possibly inflating the association between green attitudes and purchase intentions.
4. The focus on established technology brands recognized for environmental initiatives may not capture consumer responses to lesser-known or emerging green brands, limiting ecological validity.
5. The authors measure purchase intention rather than actual purchasing behaviour, which may not accurately reflect real-world consumer actions.
6. By requiring a minimum of a bachelor’s degree, the paper overrepresents highly educated perspectives, overlooking the attitudes and behaviours of less-educated or lower-income segments.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive and insightful review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your detailed summary of our research and your constructive identification of specific areas for improvement. Your feedback has been invaluable in helping us strengthen the manuscript and address important limitations. Please find our detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Question	Reviewer's Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Is the work a significant contribution to the field?	Yes	Thank you for recognizing the significance of our dual-mediation framework and its contribution to green marketing theory.
Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?	Can be improved	We have restructured the manuscript with a new Literature Review section and consolidated the methodology for better organization.
Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?	Yes	We appreciate your confirmation of the scientific rigor while noting the limitations you've identified.
Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?	Can be improved	We have reduced references from 177 to 48, focusing on the most relevant and essential citations.
Is the English used correct and readable?	Yes	Thank you for this positive assessment of the manuscript's clarity and readability.

3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Summary:

"This paper investigates the influence of green brand positioning on consumer purchase intentions for green technology products, addressing the persistent "attitude-behaviour gap"... The findings reveal that green brand positioning has a significant positive effect on purchase intention (β = 0.775, p < 0.001), with self-image congruence partially mediating this relationship (accounting for 21.5% of the effect), and functional congruence also playing a significant mediating role. Product involvement positively moderates the effect of self-image congruence, while product optionality negatively moderates the impact of functional congruence."

Response:

Thank you for this comprehensive and accurate summary of our research. We appreciate your clear understanding of our theoretical framework and empirical findings.

Weakness 1:

"The sample is limited to US residents aged 18–35 with at least a bachelor's degree and experience with technology products, which restricts generalizability to broader or more diverse consumer populations."

Response 1:

We completely agree with this important limitation and have significantly enhanced our discussion of generalizability constraints.

Revisions made:

• Enhanced Limitations Section (Section 5.4, Page 15, Lines 420-445): We have added a comprehensive discussion titled "Sample and Generalizability Constraints" that explicitly addresses how our sample characteristics limit external validity.

Specific text added: "The sample composition (educated, technology-experienced US consumers aged 18-35) limits generalizability to broader demographic segments and international markets. The high education requirement (minimum bachelor's degree) may overrepresent highly educated perspectives while overlooking the attitudes and behaviours of less-educated or lower-income consumer segments who represent significant portions of most consumer markets."

• Future Research Recommendations (Section 5.5, Page 16, Lines 465-470): We explicitly recommend cross-cultural research and diverse demographic studies.

We acknowledge this is a significant limitation that requires future research to enhance external validity across diverse populations and cultural contexts.

Weakness 2:

"The study's cross-sectional nature precludes causal inference and does not account for changes in attitudes or behaviours over time."

Response 2:

We fully acknowledge this methodological limitation and have enhanced our discussion accordingly.

Revisions made:

• Methodological Limitations Discussion (Section 5.4, Page 15, Lines 446-455): We have explicitly acknowledged the causal inference limitation.

Specific text added: "The cross-sectional research design precludes definitive causal inference regarding the directionality of observed relationships, while reliance on self-report measures introduces potential common method bias concerns."

• Future Research Directions (Section 5.5, Page 16, Lines 471-475): We recommend longitudinal designs to examine temporal dynamics.

Specific text added: "Longitudinal research designs could illuminate the temporal dynamics of green brand positioning effects, examining how consumer responses evolve as environmental consciousness develops, competitive responses emerge, and market conditions change."

We recognize that our cross-sectional design limits causal claims and have recommended experimental and longitudinal approaches for future research.

Weakness 3:

"Reliance on self-reported data introduces potential biases such as social desirability and recall bias, possibly inflating the association between green attitudes and purchase intentions."

Response 3:

We agree with this concern about self-report bias and have addressed it explicitly in our limitations.

Revisions made:

• Self-Report Bias Acknowledgment (Section 5.4, Page 15, Lines 450-460): We have added explicit discussion of potential response biases.

Specific text added: "while reliance on self-report measures introduces potential common method bias concerns despite statistical tests suggesting this is not a substantial issue. Additionally, the study measures purchase intention rather than actual purchasing behaviour, which may not accurately reflect real-world consumer actions given well-documented intention-behavior gaps in environmental consumption contexts."

• Methodological Recommendations (Section 5.5, Page 16, Lines 476-480): We recommend incorporating behavioral measures.

Specific text added: "Research incorporating actual purchase behavior and experimental manipulations would provide stronger evidence for the proposed theoretical relationships."

We acknowledge that self-report bias may inflate associations and recommend future research incorporating behavioral measures and multiple informants.

Weakness 4:

"The focus on established technology brands recognized for environmental initiatives may not capture consumer responses to lesser-known or emerging green brands, limiting ecological validity."

Response 4:

This is an excellent point about ecological validity that we have now addressed in our limitations.

Revisions made:

• Contextual Limitations Discussion (Section 5.4, Page 15, Lines 461-470): We have added specific discussion of brand selection limitations.

Specific text added: "Additionally, the examination of established technology brands recognised for environmental initiatives may not capture consumer responses to lesser-known or emerging green brands, limiting ecological validity of findings to broader green marketing contexts."

• Brand Context Implications: We acknowledge that our findings may not generalize to newer or less-established green brands that lack recognition for environmental initiatives.

We recognize this limitation and recommend future research examining diverse brand portfolios including emerging and lesser-known green brands.

Weakness 5:

"The authors measure purchase intention rather than actual purchasing behaviour, which may not accurately reflect real-world consumer actions."

Response 5:

We completely agree with this important limitation regarding the intention-behavior gap.

Revisions made:

• Behavioral Measurement Limitation (Section 5.4, Page 15, Lines 455-465): We have explicitly acknowledged the intention-behavior gap concern.

Specific text added: "Additionally, the study measures purchase intention rather than actual purchasing behaviour, which may not accurately reflect real-world consumer actions given well-documented intention-behavior gaps in environmental consumption contexts."

• Practical Implications Caveat (Section 5.3, Page 14, Lines 395-400): We have noted that our practical recommendations should be validated with behavioral outcomes.
• Future Research Priority: We have prioritized behavioral measurement in our future research recommendations.

We acknowledge this significant limitation and emphasize the need for future research to examine actual purchase behavior rather than intentions alone.

Weakness 6:

"By requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree, the paper overrepresents highly educated perspectives, overlooking the attitudes and behaviours of less-educated or lower-income segments."

Response 6:

This is a crucial point about sample bias that we have now addressed comprehensively.

Revisions made:

• Educational Bias Discussion (Section 5.4, Page 15, Lines 430-440): We have added detailed discussion of education-related sampling bias.

Specific text added: "The high education requirement (minimum bachelor's degree) may overrepresent highly educated perspectives while overlooking the attitudes and behaviours of less-educated or lower-income consumer segments who represent significant portions of most consumer markets. This demographic constraint is particularly important given that environmental attitudes and purchasing power may vary substantially across socioeconomic groups."

• Socioeconomic Implications: We acknowledge that environmental purchasing patterns may differ significantly across income and education levels.
• Future Research Recommendations: We explicitly recommend research across diverse socioeconomic segments.

We recognize this as a significant limitation that potentially biases our findings toward highly educated consumers and limits applicability across socioeconomic segments.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

No specific comments were provided regarding English language quality.

5. Additional Clarifications

Summary of Major Improvements Made:

1. Enhanced Limitations Section: We have substantially expanded Section 5.4 to provide honest, detailed assessment of all six limitations you identified.
2. Future Research Directions: Section 5.5 now explicitly addresses how future research can overcome these limitations through:
• Cross-cultural and diverse demographic studies
• Longitudinal and experimental designs
• Behavioral measurement approaches
• Multiple informant designs
• Broader brand portfolio examinations
3. Methodological Transparency: We have improved transparency about the constraints and boundaries of our findings.
4. Practical Implications Caveats: We have noted where our recommendations should be validated with more diverse samples and behavioral measures.

Overall Assessment: While we maintain confidence in our theoretical contributions and empirical findings within the specified context, we now provide much more comprehensive acknowledgment of the limitations you identified. These limitations represent important directions for future research rather than fatal flaws, and we have positioned them accordingly.

Thank you again for this thorough and constructive review. Your feedback has significantly strengthened the manuscript's scholarly integrity and transparency.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As a solo paper, it shows significant effort and time. 

The introduction sections have certain aims and finally present the contribution of the study. 

The whole section is written in great detail. The only concern is that the sections are not in the standard and expected frame. I mean, for example, in Materials and Methods, you have many sub-items, but not necessarily. They can be written in one or two integrated paragraphs. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your positive assessment and constructive feedback. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. Your comments have helped us improve the manuscript's structure and presentation significantly.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Question	Reviewer's Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes	Thank you for this positive assessment. We have maintained the comprehensive theoretical foundation while adding a new Literature Review section to further strengthen the background.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Can be improved	We have addressed this by reducing references from 177 to 48, focusing only on the most relevant and essential citations that directly support our theoretical arguments.
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes	Thank you for confirming the appropriateness of our research design.
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved	We have consolidated the methodology section as per your specific recommendation (see detailed response below).
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes	Thank you for this positive feedback on our results presentation.
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes	We appreciate your confirmation that our conclusions are well-supported by the empirical findings.

3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment:

"As a solo paper, it shows significant effort and time. The introduction sections have certain aims and finally present the contribution of the study. The whole section is written in great detail. The only concern is that the sections are not in the standard and expected frame. I mean, for example, in Materials and Methods, you have many sub-items, but not necessarily. They can be written in one or two integrated paragraphs."

Response:

Thank you very much for acknowledging the significant effort invested in this research and for your positive assessment of the introduction and overall contribution. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the detailed work presented.

Regarding your concern about the methodology section structure, we completely agree with your recommendation. We have accordingly revised and consolidated the Materials and Methods section to follow a more standard and integrated format as you suggested.

Specific changes made:

BEFORE: The methodology section contained 8 separate subsections with excessive fragmentation:

• 1. Research Design and Theoretical Framework
• 2. Participant Recruitment and Sample Characteristics
• 3. Stimulus Materials and Brand Selection
• 4. Section 1: Demographics and Brand Familiarity
• 5. Section 2: Construct Measurement
• 6. Data Collection Procedures
• 7. Statistical Analysis
• 8. Ethical Considerations

AFTER: We have consolidated these into 3 integrated sections with flowing paragraphs (Section 3, Pages 8-10):

3.1. Research Design and Participants - This integrated section now combines the research design, theoretical framework, participant recruitment procedures, and sample characteristics in flowing narrative paragraphs rather than fragmented bullet points.

3.2. Measurement Instruments - This consolidated section presents all scales and measures with their theoretical rationale in integrated paragraphs, eliminating unnecessary subsection divisions.

3.3. Data Collection and Statistical Analysis - This section combines data collection procedures, analytical approach, and ethical considerations in a cohesive narrative format.

Benefits of this restructuring:

• Enhanced readability and professional presentation
• Better narrative flow between methodological elements
• Reduced fragmentation while maintaining all essential methodological information
• Alignment with standard academic formatting expectations

The revised methodology section now follows the standard integrated paragraph format you recommended while preserving all necessary methodological details for replication purposes.

Location in revised manuscript: Section 3, Pages 8-10, Lines 180-285

Thank you again for this valuable suggestion, which has significantly improved the manuscript's structure and adherence to academic standards.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

No specific comments were provided regarding English language quality.

5. Additional Clarifications

We have made several additional improvements beyond the specific recommendation:

1. Added comprehensive Literature Review section (Section 2) to strengthen theoretical positioning
2. Revised abstract to focus on conclusions rather than statistical details
3. Reduced keywords from 9 to 5 for better focus
4. Condensed Discussion section for greater clarity and impact
5. Reduced references from 177 to 48 most relevant citations

These changes, combined with your recommended methodology restructuring, have resulted in a more focused, professionally presented, and academically sound manuscript.

We sincerely thank you for your constructive feedback and positive assessment of our research contribution.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

OK for publication

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editing is highly recommended.