From Fast Fashion to Shared Sustainability: The Role of Digital Communication and Policy in Generation Z’s Consumption Habits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Define what Influence is (Theoretical framework section). and how does it affect the (digital) consumer behavior.
• It would be interesting for the authors to include a breif paragraph mentioning "Reference groups" and their influece during "Purchase Decision Process" in the Theoretical framework section. This would support the following results and insights. Perhaps mentioning Kotler et al., Fill and Turnbull. 
• A definition of "Greenwashing" is needed, prior the use in the Discussion section (Line 331). Perhaps in the Theoretical Framework.
• Authors should support the gap between the attitud and implementation, mentioned in the Discussion section (Line 342).
• Authors should address the implications of the limitation for the non-probabilistic sample in the Conclusion section (Line 350).
• Acknowlege how does digital communication influences a purchase or consumer's behavior.
• Indicate,if was discovered, what specific digital platforms are most effective for different types of sustainable communication? (among the Generations mentioned).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the invitation to review ‘From Fast Fashion to Shared Sustainability: The Role of Digital Communication and Policy in Generation Z's Consumption Habits for Sustainability

 

It is Timely topic with relevance to sustainable fashion. However, there are some major points which should be addressed for improvement:

Abstract

• Methodology, methods and analytical techniques used in this study can be informed clearly.
• Practical and theoretical implications can be clearer and more specific.
• There is no mention of sample and how the questionnaire was validated

Introduction

• The introduction is uninformed. It only consists of two paragraphs where research questions should be stated clearly. I suggest removing the hypotheses from this section.
• Justifications are important! I did not find any reasonable justifications for choosing this area of research.
• Most importantly, you should show a logical connection between these variables and between paragraphs.
• You should clearly state the gaps, contributions and originality of your research.

Theoretical Background

• What theory do you employ? Be specific. How does the theory explain the relationship between variables?
• Theoretical Background is superficial without substence or significance, you need deep analysis with a logical connection with the variables.
• I think this section needs improvement in terms of structure, analysis, engagement with previous literature, show empirical evidence
• Several ideas, such as the importance of sustainable fashion and Gz , are repeated without adding new insights.

 

In general, the above comments/suggestions in this section must be considered.

• Ensure a logical flow by integrating discussions around literature more explicitly rather than presenting standalone concepts inconsistencies and weak theoretical Justification
• Deepen theoretical insights with strong empirical support
• Critically engaged with prior literature
• Eliminate Redundancies

 

By addressing these concerns, the literature review would become more rigorous, critical, and impactful

• I suggest separating the theoretical background from literature review, making it in two separate sections.

 

Research Methodology

• Who are your target people?
• How do you choose your sample? What is the population?
• Provide justification for the sample size?
• What measures were taken for common method bias? No information about common method bias and non-response bias is provided, also you need to Justify why the chosen method is best suited for the research.
• Where has the study been conducted? You should mention it in the section and why you choose this country.
• Ethical approval and consent participation are missing

 

Results and discussion

• findings are not fully explained; Possible explanations are important to strength the findings.
• While the study is valuable, it would benefit from comparing results with those from other regions to explore whether the findings are consistent across different cultural and economic environments
• You must add two more sections, theoretical and practical implications, and connect them with the findings
•  

 

Limitations and Future Research

• Address the limited geographical focus in more detail.
• Suggest specific methodological or contextual directions for future studies

Language and Style

• Revise for grammatical accuracy and readability

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main research question is to analyze the role of digital communication and peer influence in Generation Z’s transition from fast fashion consumption to more sustainable practices.
The topic examined in the article is not original, but it is of great relevance. The article analyzes the results obtained on the role of digital communication and peer influence in Generation Z’s transition from fast fashion consumption to more sustainable, but lacks more detailed practical recommendations on how to develop sustainability ideas among Generation Z, especially when it comes to men. Because as the authors note, sustainability ideas are not popular among men.
The methodology chosen by the authors is suitable, but the number of respondents chosen is relatively small. I think the authors would have obtained much more valuable research results if they had interviewed at least twice as many respondents.
I would recommend improving the research findings so that they are presented as the conclusions of a scientific study, and not as a discussion.
The sources cited in the article are appropriate, but the value of the scientific article would be enhanced by a more detailed analysis of the scientific literature, which is lacking in the article.

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the improvments made toward the paper, however there are still some issues need to be fixed 

The hypotheses are now clearer, but some still read like predictions without strong critical justification.

The addition of justification for convenience sampling and handling of non-responses is appreciated. Still, the limitations of this sampling method should be more explicitly acknowledged in the discussion section, not just in methods.

The discussion has improved, with better links to theory. However, some sections are still descriptive and repeat results instead of critically engaging with them.

Practical implications are now more specific, but they remain at a somewhat generic level, ndustry-specific strategies would increase the practical value.

The limitations are better articulated but could go further—particularly in pointing out issues of causality, cultural specificity, and industry heterogeneity.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.docx