Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an empirical study that adapts the Quality-Loyalty Model by integrating the concept of affective commitment to better understand green consumer loyalty and purchase behavior. Using data from 679 Vietnamese consumers, the authors test a comprehensive structural model via PLS-SEM. The study confirms the central role of affective commitment in influencing green loyalty intention and behavior and highlights green perceived quality as a key antecedent. The paper’s strengths lie in its rigorous methodology, well-defined theoretical model, and relevance to sustainability marketing in emerging markets.

The research addresses a timely and important topic, green consumer behavior, by extending established loyalty frameworks with emotional constructs such as affective commitment. The conceptual model is well-developed and grounded in a solid theoretical foundation. The hypotheses are logically derived and clearly stated. The empirical method (PLS-SEM) is appropriate for the study’s design, and the analysis is comprehensive. The manuscript’s overall structure is sound, and the argumentation is coherent.

However, the clarity of the English language in some sections limits accessibility and could benefit from editing. In addition, while the study offers a strong empirical contribution, the theoretical contribution is moderate. The discussion could be deepened by engaging more critically with how the findings extend or challenge current theory.

The hypotheses are well-defined, derived from literature, and testable. All 12 hypotheses are explicitly outlined and evaluated through structural equation modeling.

The use of PLS-SEM is justified and executed correctly. Constructs are based on validated scales from prior research. The sample size (n = 679) is more than sufficient, and the statistical thresholds (e.g., Cronbach's Alpha, Composite Reliability, AVE, VIF) are clearly reported.

The use of volunteer sampling introduces potential self-selection bias, which is not discussed. Additionally, while common method bias is tested via VIF and discriminant validity, the authors should consider discussing social desirability bias due to the pro-environmental nature of the topic.

The methods section includes enough information to allow replication, including details on scales, sample characteristics, and statistical validation techniques.

Specific Comments

1. Line 9: Repetition: “Correspondence: Correspondence” should be corrected.
2. Lines 133–134: Figure 1 is referenced but not explained in sufficient detail. A brief narrative description of the model’s structure would help the reader.
3. Line 336 and elsewhere: Multiple instances of “Error! Reference source not found.” appear throughout the results and discussion sections. This should be resolved to properly reference figures/tables.
4. Line 374 onwards: The discussion often repeats statistical findings from the results without deeper theoretical synthesis. This section could be enhanced by linking findings more critically to existing literature and addressing alternative explanations.
5. Line 463–475: The limitations section is underdeveloped. The authors should more clearly discuss sampling bias, generalizability, and the cultural specificity of their findings.
6. Tables and Figures: Statistical tables are comprehensive and well-labeled. However, some figures are not clearly referenced in the main text. The readability of the SEM path diagram could be improved by increasing font size and contrast.

• The manuscript is logically structured and the topic is relevant. However, clarity is affected by occasional awkward phrasing and long, dense paragraphs.
• The manuscript engages well with current literature (many references from 2022-2024). There is no evidence of excessive self-citation.
• The use of PLS-SEM is suitable for the structural model. Constructs are valid and reliable.
• Measurement items, sampling procedures, and statistical methods are well-documented.
• Most tables are detailed and support the analysis. Some figures (e.g., the path diagram) could be made clearer. Errors in figure references should be corrected.
• The conclusions are supported by the data, although the strength of claims should be moderated slightly to reflect the model’s context-specific nature.
• Ethical approval and informed consent are stated. Data availability is addressed and meets the journal’s requirements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While the manuscript is generally understandable, it includes several awkward or overly complex sentences that hinder readability. Phrases like “Correspondence: Correspondence” or long, compound constructions should be revised. Consider simplifying your writing style, breaking long paragraphs into shorter, focused ones, and using active voice where possible. A professional language editing service or review by a native English-speaking colleague is strongly advised to enhance clarity, flow, and academic tone.

There are multiple instances in the manuscript where references to figures or tables appear as “Error! Reference source not found.” This raises concerns about document formatting and attention to detail. Ensure that all figures and tables are correctly numbered and referenced in the text. In particular, readers need clear links to the SEM model diagram and the hypothesis testing results.

The discussion currently leans heavily on repeating statistical results without enough interpretive depth. For instance, while it is stated that green perceived quality has the highest effect on loyalty intention, it would strengthen the manuscript to explain why this might differ from previous findings, or how this insight may apply in different contexts. Engage more critically with how your findings contribute to theory: Do they challenge assumptions from the original Quality-Loyalty model? What new mechanisms or boundary conditions do they reveal?Consider addressing possible contradictory findings in the literature and positioning your results within those debates.

The current limitations section is brief and general. You could strengthen it by explicitly addressing:

• Sampling bias: The use of volunteer sampling may limit generalizability. Respondents who care about environmental issues may be overrepresented.
• Cultural specificity: The findings are based on Vietnamese consumers. How might cultural attitudes toward sustainability affect affective commitment or loyalty? Would the model hold in more individualistic or industrialized countries?
• Cross-sectional design: As data were collected at a single point in time, causality cannot be firmly established. This could be stated more explicitly.
• For future research, suggest longitudinal or cross-cultural studies to test the stability of the model.

Most tables are well-structured and informative, especially the factor loadings, VIF values, and hypothesis testing results. However, the SEM diagram in Figure 2 is visually dense and uses small text, which makes it difficult to interpret. Increase font size, ensure good contrast, and simplify where possible. Please add brief figure captions or narrative summaries in the text explaining what each visual conveys. This is especially helpful for readers who may not be familiar with SEM conventions.

The implications section is somewhat generic. You may enhance the practical value of the paper by: i) Offering concrete marketing or policy strategies based on the findings, ii) Identifying how green product manufacturers or sustainability campaigns in emerging markets can leverage affective commitment to drive behavioral change, iii) Discussing any implications for consumer education or labeling schemes (e.g. how green perceived quality can be signaled more effectively).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally comprehensible and structured logically. However, the quality of English needs improvement to enhance clarity and professionalism.

There are multiple instances of grammatical awkwardness, particularly with article usage ("the green loyalty intention" instead of simply "green loyalty intention"), subject-verb agreement, and misused prepositions. For example:

• "Correspondence: Correspondence" (line 9) is a clear formatting/repetition error.
• "This implies that green perceived quality is the root of enhancing green loyalty intention…” could be rephrased for clarity (e.g. “...is the key driver of green loyalty intention”)

Many sentences are excessively long, with multiple clauses and redundant phrases, making them difficult to follow. For example: "Green perception (of products) including the intangible experience of customers can be seen as a psychological aspect of individuals that influences an individual's emotions."
Suggested: "Green product perception, including the customer's intangible experience, reflects a psychological factor that influences consumer emotions."

The manuscript requires professional English language editing to improve clarity, remove redundancy, and polish the academic tone. This will significantly enhance the paper’s readability and ensure the research is communicated as effectively as its content deserves.

Author Response

Reviewer: 1 Thanks for the reviewer’s opinions and suggestions. Since we did not use track changes in the second revision, we highlighted all changes that have been made in red in the manuscript.   1. Line 9: Repetition: “Correspondence: Correspondence” should be corrected.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We corrected it.     2. Lines 133–134: Figure 1 is referenced but not explained in sufficient detail. A brief narrative description of the model’s structure would help the reader.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We added some more information on page 3.   3. Line 336 and elsewhere: Multiple instances of “Error! Reference source not found.” appear throughout the results and discussion sections. This should be resolved to properly reference figures/tables.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We corrected it.   4 .Line 374 onwards: The discussion often repeats statistical findings from the results without deeper theoretical synthesis. This section could be enhanced by linking findings more critically to existing literature and addressing alternative explanations.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We provided a better explanation of the results of the article.     5. Line 463–475: The limitations section is underdeveloped. The authors should more clearly discuss sampling bias, generalizability, and the cultural specificity of their findings.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We discussed the paper's limitations more clearly.     6. Tables and Figures: Statistical tables are comprehensive and well-labeled. However, some figures are not clearly referenced in the main text. The readability of the SEM path diagram could be improved by increasing font size and contrast.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We improved the presentation of Figure 2 and provided a better reference to these figures.   While the manuscript is generally understandable, it includes several awkward or overly complex sentences that hinder readability. Phrases like “Correspondence: Correspondence” or long, compound constructions should be revised. Consider simplifying your writing style, breaking long paragraphs into shorter, focused ones, and using active voice where possible. A professional language editing service or review by a native English-speaking colleague is strongly advised to enhance clarity, flow, and academic tone.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We have improved several sections of the manuscript.   There are multiple instances in the manuscript where references to figures or tables appear as “Error! Reference source not found.” This raises concerns about document formatting and attention to detail. Ensure that all figures and tables are correctly numbered and referenced in the text. In particular, readers need clear links to the SEM model diagram and the hypothesis testing results.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We have corrected this issue as suggested.   The discussion currently leans heavily on repeating statistical results without enough interpretive depth. For instance, while it is stated that green perceived quality has the highest effect on loyalty intention, it would strengthen the manuscript to explain why this might differ from previous findings, or how this insight may apply in different contexts. Engage more critically with how your findings contribute to theory: Do they challenge assumptions from the original Quality-Loyalty model? What new mechanisms or boundary conditions do they reveal?Consider addressing possible contradictory findings in the literature and positioning your results within those debates.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We tried to improve the manuscript according to the suggestions of the reviewer.   The current limitations section is brief and general. You could strengthen it by explicitly addressing: •           Sampling bias: The use of volunteer sampling may limit generalizability. Respondents who care about environmental issues may be overrepresented. •           Cultural specificity: The findings are based on Vietnamese consumers. How might cultural attitudes toward sustainability affect affective commitment or loyalty? Would the model hold in more individualistic or industrialized countries? •           Cross-sectional design: As data were collected at a single point in time, causality cannot be firmly established. This could be stated more explicitly. •           For future research, suggest longitudinal or cross-cultural studies to test the stability of the model.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We tried to improve the manuscript according to the suggestions of the reviewer.   •           Sampling bias: The use of volunteer sampling may limit generalizability. Respondents who care about environmental issues may be overrepresented.   > While using, we tried to spread out the participant distribution by evenly selecting locations to collect data. Using Google Form, we send the form to customers of the three power corporations in the cities that help us to increase the representation of respondents.   •           Cultural specificity: The findings are based on Vietnamese consumers. How might cultural attitudes toward sustainability affect affective commitment or loyalty? Would the model hold in more individualistic or industrialized countries?   > Vietnam is an emerging country with some specific characteristics. However the results of this research still can be useful for other countries. We provided some discussion in the revised manuscript.   •           Cross-sectional design: As data were collected at a single point in time, causality cannot be firmly established. This could be stated more explicitly.   > This is a typical limitation of this type of research, and we wrote it in the limitations of the paper   •           For future research, suggest longitudinal or cross-cultural studies to test the stability of the model.   > We provided this suggestion in the further study of the paper.   Most tables are well-structured and informative, especially the factor loadings, VIF values, and hypothesis testing results. However, the SEM diagram in Figure 2 is visually dense and uses small text, which makes it difficult to interpret. Increase font size, ensure good contrast, and simplify where possible. Please add brief figure captions or narrative summaries in the text explaining what each visual conveys. This is especially helpful for readers who may not be familiar with SEM conventions.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We tried to improve the figures and manuscript according to the suggestions of the reviewer.   The implications section is somewhat generic. You may enhance the practical value of the paper by: i) Offering concrete marketing or policy strategies based on the findings, ii) Identifying how green product manufacturers or sustainability campaigns in emerging markets can leverage affective commitment to drive behavioral change, iii) Discussing any implications for consumer education or labeling schemes (e.g. how green perceived quality can be signaled more effectively).   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We improved the implications section of the paper according to the reviewer's suggestions.   Comments on the Quality of the English Language.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We tried to improve the use of English in the revised manuscript.

 

We have carefully read and addressed each reviewer's comment point by point in the responses above. The revised manuscript has been submitted as a separate file, in which the added texts were highlighted in red to facilitate easier review and tracking. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the high standards of Sustainability, and we look forward to your positive consideration.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and thoughtful guidance.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

Article Title: An Adaptation of the Quality-Loyalty Model to Study Green Consumer Loyalty

The research subject is timely and relevant, given the growing global emphasis on sustainability and environmentally responsible consumption. The study offers a valuable contribution by extending the quality-loyalty model into the domain of green consumption, specifically by incorporating emotional commitment and behavioural linkages. This approach provides a more detailed explanation of green consumer loyalty and purchase behaviour in emerging markets such as Vietnam.

The methodology is carefully constructed to align with the integrated conceptual framework, using established measurement instruments and an appropriate sample size. The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) is appropriate for the complexity of the proposed model and enables robust testing of the hypothesized relationships.

However, despite the evident relevance of the research topic and the considerable empirical effort invested, certain revisions and corrections remain necessary to enhance the overall clarity, structure, and academic rigor of the manuscript.

The introduction would benefit from a clearer and more explicit statement of the study’s primary aim early in the text. This would help guide readers and clarify the specific focus and relevance of the adaptation being proposed.

Regarding hypothesis formulation, the current phrasing of Hypothesis H2 ("affective commitment of green products") may lead to conceptual ambiguity. Affective commitment is commonly understood as an emotional attachment to an object, not a characteristic of the object. It is therefore recommended to revise the phrasing to “affective commitment to green products” for greater conceptual accuracy and alignment with established terminology in the literature.

The explanation of findings could be strengthened by providing more interpretation of the statistical outcomes. In particular, elaborating on how the factor structure supports the theoretical model and how reliability and validity measures confirm the soundness of the constructs would enhance the analytical depth of the results section.

The discussion would be strengthened by incorporating more scholarly references to support the interpretation of findings and to situate the results more clearly within the broader literature. This would improve both the depth and credibility of the discussion.

While the Limitations and Future Research section provides useful insights and directions, the manuscript currently lacks a formal conclusion. It is advisable to include a dedicated conclusion section that succinctly summarizes the main findings, highlights the theoretical and practical implications, and offers a strong final reflection on the study’s contributions.

A critical formatting issue is the presence of unresolved referencing errors (e.g., “Error! Reference source not found” and “Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference”). This issue should be corrected to ensure a professional and readable presentation.

In summary, the paper addresses an important and timely topic, and with improvements in clarity, interpretation and formatting, it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to both green marketing literature and consumer behaviour research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer: 2 Thanks for the reviewer’s opinions and suggestions. Since we did not use track changes in the second revision, we highlighted all changes that were made in red in the manuscript.   The introduction would benefit from a clearer and more explicit statement of the study’s primary aim early in the text. This would help guide readers and clarify the specific focus and relevance of the adaptation being proposed.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We added a short paragraph on the main focuses of the article.   Regarding hypothesis formulation, the current phrasing of Hypothesis H2 ("affective commitment of green products") may lead to conceptual ambiguity. Affective commitment is commonly understood as an emotional attachment to an object, not a characteristic of the object. It is therefore recommended to revise the phrasing to “affective commitment to green products” for greater conceptual accuracy and alignment with established terminology in the literature.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We made the changes as suggested by the reviewer.   The explanation of findings could be strengthened by providing more interpretation of the statistical outcomes. In particular, elaborating on how the factor structure supports the theoretical model and how reliability and validity measures confirm the soundness of the constructs would enhance the analytical depth of the results section.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We tried to improve this part as suggested by the reviewer.   The discussion would be strengthened by incorporating more scholarly references to support the interpretation of findings and to situate the results more clearly within the broader literature. This would improve both the depth and credibility of the discussion.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We tried to improve this part as suggested by the reviewer.   While the Limitations and Future Research section provides useful insights and directions, the manuscript currently lacks a formal conclusion. It is advisable to include a dedicated conclusion section that succinctly summarizes the main findings, highlights the theoretical and practical implications, and offers a strong final reflection on the study’s contributions.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We added a short conclusion as suggested by the reviewer.   A critical formatting issue is the presence of unresolved referencing errors (e.g., “Error! Reference source not found” and “Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference”). This issue should be corrected to ensure a professional and readable presentation.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We fixed these issues in the revised manuscript.

 

We have carefully read and addressed each reviewer's comment point by point in the responses above. The revised manuscript has been submitted as a separate file, in which the added texts were highlighted in red to facilitate easier review and tracking. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the high standards of Sustainability, and we look forward to your positive consideration.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and thoughtful guidance.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “An Adaptation of the Quality-Loyalty Model to Study Green Consumer Loyalty”

This research investigates an adaptation of the quality-loyalty model, integrating affective commitment as a key factor to understand green consumer loyalty. The study develops a comprehensive framework with 12 hypotheses, tested using empirical data from 679 environmentally conscious consumers in Vietnam. The authors utilize the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique for assessment. The findings affirm the integrated model's suitability for studying green consumption and highlight the significant role of affective commitment in influencing green loyalty intention and green purchase behavior, with green perceived quality also playing a crucial role.

 

Deficiencies and Proposed Corrections:

1. Introduction and Literature Review: While the introduction sets the stage effectively, some transitions between paragraphs could be smoother to enhance flow. For instance, the transition from general green consumerism to specific theories of loyalty (e.g., Theory of Planned Behavior, Quality-Loyalty Model) could be more explicit in demonstrating the gap this study fills. The authors should clearly articulate the specific research gap in the introduction, explaining why existing models are insufficient for capturing green consumer loyalty and how the integration of affective commitment addresses this.
2. Conceptual Framework: In Section 2.5, "Green Perceived Quality," the hypotheses are incorrectly labeled as H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d. These labels conflict with the hypotheses already presented under "Green Satisfaction" (H4a, H4b). This indicates an error in numbering and could lead to confusion. Re-number the hypotheses consistently throughout the paper.
3. Methodology and Results: In the "Data Analysis" subsection (or a dedicated subsection for measurement model evaluation), clearly explain the process of item elimination (e.g., based on factor loadings, cross-loadings) and its theoretical or statistical justification.
4. Section 3.2, "Sample and Data Collection," mentions using "volunteer sampling methodology". While the authors argue it can yield "more dependable samples" than convenience sampling, it is still a non-probability sampling method. This limitation implies that the findings may not be generalizable to the entire Vietnamese population of environmentally conscious consumers. While the paper mentions that participants have "previously acquired green products on at least one occasion", this specific characteristic of the sample may introduce self-selection bias. The authors should explicitly acknowledge the limitations of volunteer sampling more thoroughly in the "Limitations and Future Research" section, discussing the potential for self-selection bias and its impact on generalizability. Suggest ways future research could employ probability sampling methods or more rigorous recruitment strategies to enhance external validity.

Author Response

Reviewer: 3 Thanks for the reviewer’s opinions and suggestions. Since we did not use track changes in the second revision, we highlighted all changes that were made in red in the manuscript.   1. Introduction and Literature Review: While the introduction sets the stage effectively, some transitions between paragraphs could be smoother to enhance flow. For instance, the transition from general green consumerism to specific theories of loyalty (e.g., Theory of Planned Behavior, Quality-Loyalty Model) could be more explicit in demonstrating the gap this study fills. The authors should clearly articulate the specific research gap in the introduction, explaining why existing models are insufficient for capturing green consumer loyalty and how the integration of affective commitment addresses this.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. - We believed that we had some description of such issues in the introduction of the paper - We added a part that declares clearly the research gaps in the revised manuscript   2. Conceptual Framework: In Section 2.5, "Green Perceived Quality," the hypotheses are incorrectly labeled as H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d. These labels conflict with the hypotheses already presented under "Green Satisfaction" (H4a, H4b). This indicates an error in numbering and could lead to confusion. Re-number the hypotheses consistently throughout the paper.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We have already fixed this issue.   3. Methodology and Results: In the "Data Analysis" subsection (or a dedicated subsection for measurement model evaluation), clearly explain the process of item elimination (e.g., based on factor loadings, cross-loadings) and its theoretical or statistical justification.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We added some more detailed information on data analysis in the revised manuscript.   4.         Section 3.2, "Sample and Data Collection," mentions using "volunteer sampling methodology". While the authors argue it can yield "more dependable samples" than convenience sampling, it is still a non-probability sampling method. This limitation implies that the findings may not be generalizable to the entire Vietnamese population of environmentally conscious consumers. While the paper mentions that participants have "previously acquired green products on at least one occasion", this specific characteristic of the sample may introduce self-selection bias. The authors should explicitly acknowledge the limitations of volunteer sampling more thoroughly in the "Limitations and Future Research" section, discussing the potential for self-selection bias and its impact on generalizability. Suggest ways future research could employ probability sampling methods or more rigorous recruitment strategies to enhance external validity.   Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s opinion and suggestions. In this research: - We tried to collect data as close to random as possible, but the data collection in this research still relied heavily on volunteer sampling; therefore, we acknowledged this limitation in the conclusion of the revised manuscript.

 

We have carefully read and addressed each reviewer's comment point by point in the responses above. The revised manuscript has been submitted as a separate file, in which the added texts were highlighted in red to facilitate easier review and tracking. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the high standards of Sustainability, and we look forward to your positive consideration.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and thoughtful guidance.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have implemented the suggested revisions, and the manuscript has been significantly improved. These enhancements have contributed to the overall quality and clarity of the article. Therefore, the manuscript is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer’s opinions and suggestions.

We highlighted all changes that were made in red in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "An Adaptation of the Quality-Loyalty Model to Study Green Consumer Loyalty" (Second Version)

The authors have presented a revised manuscript that incorporates affective commitment into the quality-loyalty model to study green consumer loyalty and purchase behavior. The paper utilizes empirical data from 679 environmentally conscious consumers in Vietnam and employs partial least squares structural equation modeling. The efforts to revise the manuscript are acknowledged.

 

Specific Deficiencies and Suggestions for Correction:

- Introduction and Literature Review Flow and Research Gap Clarity: The previous review noted that transitions between paragraphs in the introduction could be smoother, particularly the shift from general green consumerism to specific loyalty theories. It also requested a clearer articulation of the research gap. The authors stated they added a part that clearly declares the research gaps in the revised manuscript.  While the authors indicate they've addressed this, the flow in the introduction still feels somewhat disjointed. For instance, the discussion on the "Theory of Planned Behavior" and "Loyalty Chain Stage Theory" appears somewhat abruptly introduced, potentially diverting from the core focus on the Quality-Loyalty model before redirecting back. The explicit articulation of the research gap has improved, but further refinement to connect it more seamlessly with the preceding literature discussion would benefit the reader. I suggest enhancing the narrative flow in the introduction, ensuring that each paragraph logically builds upon the previous one to lead the reader towards the specific research gap. Explicitly signpost how existing models fall short and how the integration of affective commitment directly addresses these limitations.

 

- Methodology, Sampling and Generalizability: The previous review explicitly highlighted that the use of volunteer sampling might introduce self-selection bias and impact generalizability, suggesting a more thorough acknowledgment of limitations and ways future research could employ probability sampling. The authors acknowledged this limitation in the conclusion of the revised manuscript. They also stated that they tried to collect data as close to random as possible, but the data collection in this research still relied heavily on volunteer sampling. The authors have acknowledged the limitation of volunteer sampling in their response letter, and it is anticipated this acknowledgment is reflected in the revised manuscript's limitations section. While they mention trying to collect data as close to random as possible, the inherent nature of volunteer sampling remains a limitation. The manuscript does state that "The volunteer sampling methodology [44] was applied to identify the prospective respondents."  Ensure that the "Limitations and Future Research" section clearly elaborates on the potential for self-selection bias and its implications for generalizability. Provide concrete suggestions for future research, such as employing stratified random sampling or other probability sampling methods, to enhance external validity.

 

The authors have made a commendable effort in addressing my comments and improving the manuscript. The integration of affective commitment strengthens the proposed model. Further refinement in the narrative flow of the introduction and a more detailed discussion of sampling limitations would enhance the paper's overall quality and impact. The paper holds significant potential for publication after these minor revisions are addressed.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer’s opinions and suggestions.

Since we did not use track changes in the second revision, we highlighted all changes that were made in red in the manuscript.

 

- Introduction and Literature Review Flow and Research Gap Clarity: The previous review noted that transitions between paragraphs in the introduction could be smoother, particularly the shift from general green consumerism to specific loyalty theories. It also requested a clearer articulation of the research gap. The authors stated they added a part that clearly declares the research gaps in the revised manuscript.  While the authors indicate they've addressed this, the flow in the introduction still feels somewhat disjointed. For instance, the discussion on the "Theory of Planned Behavior" and "Loyalty Chain Stage Theory" appears somewhat abruptly introduced, potentially diverting from the core focus on the Quality-Loyalty model before redirecting back. The explicit articulation of the research gap has improved, but further refinement to connect it more seamlessly with the preceding literature discussion would benefit the reader. I suggest enhancing the narrative flow in the introduction, ensuring that each paragraph logically builds upon the previous one to lead the reader towards the specific research gap. Explicitly signpost how existing models fall short and how the integration of affective commitment directly addresses these limitations.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions.

- We rewrote the introduction as suggested by the reviewer.

 

- Methodology, Sampling and Generalizability: The previous review explicitly highlighted that the use of volunteer sampling might introduce self-selection bias and impact generalizability, suggesting a more thorough acknowledgment of limitations and ways future research could employ probability sampling. The authors acknowledged this limitation in the conclusion of the revised manuscript. They also stated that they tried to collect data as close to random as possible, but the data collection in this research still relied heavily on volunteer sampling. The authors have acknowledged the limitation of volunteer sampling in their response letter, and it is anticipated this acknowledgment is reflected in the revised manuscript's limitations section. While they mention trying to collect data as close to random as possible, the inherent nature of volunteer sampling remains a limitation. The manuscript does state that "The volunteer sampling methodology [44] was applied to identify the prospective respondents."  Ensure that the "Limitations and Future Research" section clearly elaborates on the potential for self-selection bias and its implications for generalizability. Provide concrete suggestions for future research, such as employing stratified random sampling or other probability sampling methods, to enhance external validity.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s opinion and suggestions. In this research:

- We described a clearer limitation of the volunteer sampling method.

- We provided a suggestion on future research related to proposing a probability sampling approach as suggested by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf