A Scale Development Study on Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture in Small and Medium Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Scale Development Study on Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture

General comments: 

The topic is interesting and falls within the journal's scope and readers' expectations.

There is a lot of effort put into developing it, yet I recommend further revisions for better restructuring and organization, adding titles and subtitles to avoid long sections.  

do not write in the form of listed paragraphs, use titles and subtitles 

Specific comments:

Title: delete the asterisk at the end of the title

Authors' list and affiliations: keep only one asterisk to indicate the corresponding author

page 1 '* This article is derived from Candan Özgün AYAR's doctoral dissertation prepared at Tekirdag Namik Ke-9 mal University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Business Administration. 10
*' delete

Abstracrt:

4P ? explain in bracket

page 1 line 25-26 please support the results mentioned in the abstract section with numerical data, and add more details to briefly describe the outcome results

Keywords:

Consider adding more relevant keywords

SMEs: Use the full term not the abbreviation in the list of keywords

page 2 lines 44,46 do not use bold letters in text

Introduction:

page 3 line 137 , and page 4 line 146 add this to the research limitations and directions for future research section

page 4 line 156 Do not underline

Method

page 8 line 365-369 This is the method section, so I expect to find minimal reference to previous studies, and more description of the authors' implemented methods

page 9 lines 448-421 not clear, was this scale adopted in this current study?

Table 3 This list can be added as an appendix

page 15 lines 538-548 I believe that this part constituting the introduction about EFA could be moved earlier 

Discussion and conclusion 

I recommend separating the discussion section from the conclusion section for better structure and organization, and to avoid such a long section with no subtitles

Also, section 6, and 7 could be subsections to a main discussion section. Add limitation to the discussions sections, but add future research to a separate conclusion and directions for future research section

 

Please refer to the attached annotated file for authors' guidance,

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study introduces a foundational measurement instrument to the 4P-oriented green marketing literature, intended to evaluate the extent to which small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) implement the green marketing mix. The topic addressed is both timely and of substantial academic significance. Accordingly, I offer the following suggestions for the authors’ consideration to support further improvement.

1. Paper Title:

I suggest that the authors consider incorporating 'SME businesses' into the paper’s title to better highlight the study’s contextual focus

Abstract

1. The stated research objective—“designed to identify and measure the implementation of the green marketing mix by SMEs.”—is somewhat general. It is recommended that the authors clearly articulate that the study aims to develop a measurement scale for assessing how SMEs implement green marketing practices. This would help better reflect the actual contribution of the research.

Introduction

1. The authors need to include a link in order to strengthen the logical connection between the TBL framework to SME green marketing practices.
2. In the introduction, the authors separately discuss studies related to green marketing measurement scales and examples of green marketing practices. The authors could integrate these discussions to more clearly demonstrate the developmental trajectory and limitations of existing research on scale development and application in the green marketing context.
3. The literature gap section states that this study aims to address the lack of measurement regarding how SMEs internalize green practices as part of their “marketing culture.” It is recommended that the authors elaborate on the concept of “marketing culture” as a form of internalized practice, and clarify its significance in the context of SMEs.
4. The introduction outlines the basic theoretical frameworks of both the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) and the 4P marketing mix separately. However, the two concepts are not clearly integrated, making them appear somewhat disconnected in the current discussion. The authors are advised to further explain the rationale behind adopting the 4P framework as the core structure—both from theoretical and practical perspectives—to enhance the coherence and persuasiveness of the study’s theoretical foundation.

Theoretical Framework

1. While the authors adopt the Natural-Resource-Based View (NRBV) as the core theoretical foundation of the study, there is currently limited explanation regarding its relevance to the contextual characteristics of SMEs engaging in green marketing. It is recommended that the authors elaborate on why NRBV is particularly suitable for analyzing green practices in SMEs, and strengthen the justification and contextual alignment of the chosen theory.
2. This study's measurement scale is built upon the NRBV framework, which emphasizes three core environmental strategies proposed by Hart—pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development. It is suggested that the authors further explain how these three strategic dimensions conceptually correspond to the three components of the scale (i.e., green packaging, green distribution, and environmental promotion), in order to enhance the theoretical coherence and interpretability of the scale structure.
3. The term "Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture (GMMPC)" is repeatedly mentioned in the theoretical framework as a key concept of the study. However, its theoretical definition and supporting literature appear to be underdeveloped. The authors are encouraged to provide a clearer conceptual definition, identify its theoretical origins, and supplement the discussion with relevant literature to improve the theoretical clarity and overall coherence of the research framework.

Method

1. Although Table 20 (p. 24) outlines the GMMPC dimensions and items, it is recommended to briefly state in the methodology how many dimensions the GMMPC scale includes, how many items per dimension, and to summarize the item sources in a table to improve clarity and transparency.
2. It is recommended to indicate the corresponding dimensions for each item in Table 3 to enhance the clarity of the scale structure and help readers quickly understand the logic behind the dimension design and item arrangement.

Discussion and Conclusion

1. One of the practical obstacles faced by SMEs mentioned in the study is the fear of greenwashing and the lack of professional knowledge on how to implement green marketing practices. It is recommended that the authors support this point by citing prior research to better contextualize these challenges and highlight how the developed scale differs from previous studies.
2. Although the authors state that “It can enable comparative analyses among firms of different sizes operating in various industry sectors across different regions” as one of the intended benefits of the scale, this aspect is not explicitly addressed in the discussion section. Additionally, the study does not appear to utilize empirical methods such as multi-group analyses to support this stated objective.

Theoretical Contribution

1. In this section, the authors focus primarily on the innovativeness of the scale and its potential for future research development, but provide limited discussion on its theoretical linkage or dialogue with existing green marketing frameworks, such as the Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV) or Green Marketing Orientation (GMO). It is recommended that the authors briefly elaborate on the relationship and complementarity between the developed GMMPC scale and existing theoretical models, in order to further highlight the study’s theoretical contribution and its extension of established concepts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled " A Scale Development Study on Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture " This article focuses on the green marketing practices of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), aiming to develop the "Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture (GMMPC)" scale to measure the implementation level of SMEs in the green marketing mix. The research adopts a two-stage analysis, through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, and ultimately determines a scale consisting of 12 items and 3 dimensions (environmental promotion, green packaging, green distribution), and verifies its statistical validity and reliability. This scale provides a tool for the academic community to measure the tactical green marketing capabilities of SMEs, and also offers a practical guide for enterprise managers to evaluate their own practices and improvement directions. It seems to me that there are still some problems in the article, and in view of them, the work at this stage is not suitable for publication. However, if it is necessary to receive publications, consider solving the following problems:

1. Line 174-185, the NRBV theory emphasizes the relationship between enterprise resources and environmental capabilities, but the article does not clearly explain how "green packaging and distribution" can serve as unique enterprise resources to influence performance. Theoretical derivation can be supplemented.
2. Line 361-362, the data is only from the SMEs in the Ostim Industrial Zone of Ankara, Turkey. The particularity of the region and industry (such as food and mechanical manufacturing) may affect the universality. It is necessary to clearly explain the limitations of the sample in the method section and suggest cross-cultural and cross-industry verification in the discussion.
3. Lines 482-489, the specific criteria for retaining or deleting items in the EFA were not explained, and although the pretest sample size (n=159) was greater than 100, it was not verified whether it met the sample size requirements for EFA.
4. Lines 710 to 716 merely describe the differences in dimensions. It is recommended to appropriately highlight the tactical hierarchical advantages.
5. In the "managerial/practical implications" section, it is suggested to include more examples of the application scenarios of the scale.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all constructive comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for addressing all my comments and doubts. The cover letter demonstrates that the authors have reflected on the paper's flaws and introduced the majority of the improvements needed.

However, from my perspective, the improved version is still not convincing enough to be published. Here are my comments on what should be addressed again before publication:

• Introduction (lines 31-50) - There is a need to reorganize the text. You start with green marketing, then move to sustainable marketing, and then to TBL, before returning to green marketing and sustainable marketing, culminating in a full circle back to green marketing. With the logic of writing, you should write either in order from general to detail or refer to the chronology of terms arising. None of these rules is followed here, and therefore, this section is confusing. A reader may wonder why green marketing is your focus instead of a more sustainable one. You can limit your study to environmental or green marketing practices, excluding the rest of the sustainability dimensions, but you need to justify this approach somehow. I do not find this justification in the introduction and elsewhere.
• Lines 52 and 58 both start with "although," a form of repetition.
• Lines 132-140 do not present a strong argument in support of excluding the price construct from the scale.  Notably, in lines 250-276, you present counterarguments to this exclusion. Moreover, the argumentation for exclusion or inclusion should be described in the methodology section rather than in the Introduction. 

Good luck with the improvements! 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Scale Development Study on Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture in SMEs

Thank you for considering the previously raised comments while developing the revised version of this study. Nevertheless, few minor comments necessitate authors' attention.

-use the full term in the title (Small Medium Enterprises )

-use a semicolon separating all keywords not a comma

-line 56-59 break the long sentence

- Please make sure that the full term is introduced once, and then only the abbreviation is used across the entire manuscript. This mistake is repeated stating the full name and abbreviation in many occasions. 

These are marked in the attached annotated file in addition to other comments, so please go through them one by one. 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor language check required

Author Response

We have revised the English Grammar of our study. We have highlighted our corrections in red

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ thoughtful efforts in addressing the revisions point by point. The improvements have enhanced the overall quality of the manuscript, and I would be pleased to see this study published in Sustainability.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all constructive comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all constructive comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 5 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to express my gratitude to the authors for incorporating the majority of the remarks. The text has been refined and has become more precise and more concise.

I want to raise two issues that I believe should be addressed before the final publication. The first of these is references to the Natural-Resource-Based View (NRBV) theory (lines 186-206). In my opinion, linking NRBV and the authors' concept is an overreach and therefore unconvincing. I assume that the inclusion of NRBV is due to the suggestion of another reviewer. However, from the point of view of the article's main topic, this approach would have to be included in the scale design as well. Unfortunately, this is not possible, as the research has already been completed. I would remove NRBV references.

The second objection is that the text still does not provide a compelling rationale for excluding price from the marketing mix within the final version of the scale. This has been improved compared to the previous version, but argumentation is supported by "wishful thinking" opinions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all previously raised comments. 

Author Response

Thank you again.

Reviewer 5 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for your responses to my remarks. 

As far as NRBV inclusion is concerned, I find it not needed. Moreover, it builds some expectations for the rest of the paper, which are not met at the end. However, it is up to the authors to choose whether to implement this or not. Considering their response to my comment, they opt to leave NRBV. It is fine with me.

Regarding the second comment, I find the author's response somewhat rude. This is not my job as a reviewer to find the justification (or references) for the decisions that were made by the authors, which are in opposition to the marketing literature. From the beginning, I was opposed to excluding price without a proper explanation, as price is an integral part of the marketing mix. 4P is also present in the title, but then the scale has only 3P constructs. And this is the author's job to deliver the justification, as I do not know and do not find one.

Summarizing, I would like to request that the authors elaborate on the rationale for excluding price from the marketing mix in the final version of the scale, as not only I but also the readers may find it challenging to grasp. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses the important topic of implementing green marketing in companies. However, the approach is outdated and inconsistent. Green marketing, also known as environmental marketing, is a well-established concept referring to actions targeted at environmental issues, which is only one dimension of sustainability. Nowadays, sustainability in marketing is considered more broadly, considering not only environmental and economic dimensions, but social one as well. Consequently, 'sustainable marketing' is a more up-to-date concept. The authors treat environmental and sustainable marketing as identical concepts, which is a grave mistake considering the current state of knowledge in this field and the differences between the two. A more thorough literature review would help to ensure the use of adequate terminology. Furthermore, the literature review focuses primarily on the consumer perspective, entirely omitting Green Marketing Orientation (GMO) and GMO scales, despite their close relationship with the issues included in the Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture scale. In my opinion, the manuscript fails to situate the study within the current literature sufficiently.

In the text, the authors state that "the primary aim of this study was to understand the current green marketing practices of SMEs and to develop a valid and reliable instrument capable of measuring the level of establishment of these practices within the organization, i.e., the practice culture". What does 'practice culture' mean? How is it defined? Is it simply the implementation of tools, or is it something more? Initially, it was announced that the marketing mix within the scale would be limited to the 4Ps. Ultimately, this was further limited to the 3Ps (price was omitted). The argument behind this limitation is not convincing. For example, what about people/employees perceived in previous research as one of the most critical 'factors' influencing GM adoption and execution within the organisation?

The experts were involved in the initial stage of constructing the scale. However, it is unclear whether these experts have a background in marketing or are simply academics. Moreover, some items are ambiguous. For example, what does 'green packaging practices make our products even lighter' mean? Lighter in terms of environmental footprint or something else?

In lines 625–627, the authors state that the Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture (GMMPC) scale developed in the present study 'focuses on measuring the cultural embeddedness of specific marketing mix practices under a single construct'. I am unsure whether this phrase is problematic due to translation issues or overinterpretation. Nevertheless, 'cultural embeddedness' is a defined concept that has a different meaning from that assumed by the Authors.

The discussion is overly speculative and not adequately supported by the results. Several of the conclusions drawn in the manuscript exceed the scope of the scale proposed.

While the research question is potentially relevant, the current version of the manuscript lacks methodological rigour in scale construction, particularly in the literature review required to develop the scale. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some places have unclear wording, which may be due to incorrect translation. A linguistic re-check of the text would be recommended.

Author Response

The first referee's comments have been responded to item by item and are attached as a word document. “Please see attachment.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please consider enhancing the manuscript by succinctly positioning the study within current research trends in the literature review, Highlight how your scale addresses existing gaps. Some parts, especially the discussion section, would benefit from a clearer and more balanced narrative that explains the significance of your findings and their real-world applications for SMEs. Additionally, improving the language and readability by tightening the text will enhance clarity and flow. Careful proofreading to eliminate redundancy and refine sentence structure is recommended to create a smoother reading experience. It would also be helpful to expand on future research directions, such as how the scale could be adapted or extended to cover other elements of the green marketing mix, like the extended 7Ps. Finally, please provide a clearer discussion of any limitations related to your sample such as regional focus or sector-specific biases and suggest ways these issues could be addressed in future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript’s English is generally clear and easy to understand. However, some areas could be improved for better clarity and flow. Certain sentences are repetitive or overly wordy, so adopting a more concise style would boost readability. Careful proofreading and editing to cut redundancy and refine sentence structure are recommended. With these adjustments, the manuscript will communicate its findings more effectively to an international audience.

Author Response

The second referee's comments have been responded to item by item and are attached as a word document. “Please see attachment.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on a very intriguing topic related to development of a scale on green marketing mix. However, I have some recommendations to the authors:

I recommend as the title to do not include specifically the 4P.

In the abstract, for the first use of an acronym, the full name should be provided. Also, I recommend to not use some figures resulted from data analysis, because are too technical E.g.  " no items exhibited factor loadings below 0.50. The ∆CFI value was found to be below 0.01 in both samples" (rows: 24-25). 

In Introduction, the research problem has to be presented by incorporated it into a text. Also, the reasons for limiting research scope to the 4 Ps should be presented without bullets and by incorporating some references because in some sentences the authors invoke literature (rows 74, 85, 90). It is recommended as the Introduction to contain the structure of the paper. 

At the literature review section a clearer sentence is necessary at row 143. 

At research methodology, I recommend to renounce at short subtitles e.g. Population and sample. At row 275, the data collection method is survey, not questionnaires. 

The last column in Table 6 should be more explicit. Inside the tables, comma has to be replaced with full stop. 

Please explain why a factor with a eigenvalue less than 1 is included in Table 7 and in Table 17?. Also, the figures in Table 9 are not clearly displayed. 

At Table 22, I recommend to change the name of first sub-dimension from environmental publicity to environmental promotion (publicity might be associated with advertising) as is used at row 366. 

The limitations has to be better emphasized. Conducting the survey by different means (face to face, online, self completion rows: 292-294) could be a limitation.

 

 

Author Response

The third referee's comments have been responded to item by item and are attached as a word document. “Please see attachment.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx