Sustainable Food Consumption and the Attitude–Behavior Gap: Factor Analysis and Recommendations for Marketing Communication

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments:

This article aims to identify cognitive factors underlying consumers’ poultry purchasing decisions and to propose recommendations for marketing communication strategies that position poultry as a choice aligned with sustainability goals. This topic is interesting. However, there are notable shortcomings that significantly limit the rigor of the research process and the overall contribution of the paper. Directions for improving the manuscript:

 

Q1: The title could be more concise and should highlight the key innovative points to make it more appealing to readers.

 

1. Introduction

Q2: The Introduction section does not clearly explain why consuming poultry contributes to environmental protection. The authors dedicate a large portion of the section to discussing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the three objectives of the protein transition, but fail to compare poultry with other types of meat or plant-based proteins. This comparison is necessary to demonstrate how eating poultry aligns better with the SDGs and contributes to achieving the three objectives of the protein transition.

For example, the statement, “poultry—compared to red meat—is generally considered a healthier option with a significantly lower environmental impact”, requires more evidence to support this claim and to establish that the research topic is well-founded.

Overall, the Introduction section needs to be restructured to more effectively establish the study’s context, conduct a thorough literature review, identify research gaps, and highlight the significance of the study.

 

1.1. Sustainable Diets and Changes in Dietary Behavior

 

Q3: The discussion in this section is highly disorganized and requires significant revision.

（1）For instance, the concept of "Sustainable Diets" is not clearly defined. The authors need to provide a clear and precise definition at the beginning of this section.

 

（2）Numerous terms, such as “sustainable food” and “organic food,” are introduced, but these have distinct meanings in the literature. The authors should provide a systematic literature review to clarify these terms and explain their differences.

 

(3) The writing lacks precision in several places. For example, the statement: “For instance, although consumers often declare positive attitudes toward organic food, actual purchases of such products, particularly in categories like meat, processed foods, or sweets, remain low” raises questions. Is meat considered part of the organic food category? This sentence also contains logical contradictions and needs clarification.

 

Overall, the writing in this section needs a thorough review and significant improvement to enhance clarity and coherence.

 

Q4: The manuscript, particularly the theoretical background section, contains excessive content. The authors should condense this section by focusing on the most relevant theories and arguments that directly support the research objectives.

 

2. Materials and Methods

 

Q5: The data analysis section is overly lengthy. The authors should focus on summarizing the key information and analytical processes, rather than presenting every detail. Only essential elements that are directly relevant to the study’s objectives need to be included.

 

Q6: Sections 2.1. Verification of the Hypothesis Regarding the Validity of Factor Analysis Application: Bartlett's Test and 2.2. Factor Analysis should be removed. These statistical concepts are well-established knowledge and do not represent any innovation from the authors. Including such content is unnecessary in a journal article and more appropriate for a textbook.

 

3. Results

 

Q7: The tables in this section need to be reformatted for better presentation. Currently, the font size is too small, making it difficult for readers to clearly interpret the information.

 

Q8: For Table 1 and Table 2 (Results of the correlation analysis between variables along with their statistical significance), the analysis is incorrect. The tables do not show correlations between variables but rather between survey items. Please revise accordingly.

 

Q9: In Tables 1–7, the decimal points are incorrectly formatted as commas. All numerical values should be standardized to use decimal points and be rounded to three decimal places throughout the manuscript.

 

Q10: In Table 8, the names of the factors are missing, and only numerical values are provided. Please include the names of the factors for clarity and completeness.

 

Q11: The textual discussion on Pages 17–18 is inconsistent with the content provided in the tables. Some tables include unimportant information, while the main discussion—such as the reasons for consumers choosing poultry and the percentage distributions—is not supported by table data. Please revise to include relevant data and ensure consistency between the tables and the discussion.

 

4. Conclusions

 

Q12: The findings presented in the conclusion lack sufficient novelty. While the authors document the discrepancy between consumers’ stated concern for sustainability and their actual prioritization of taste, health, and convenience, they fail to explore the underlying driving factors behind this difference. This limits the depth and originality of the conclusions.

 

Q13: The conclusion section is somewhat repetitive of the earlier sections of the manuscript. Additionally, the authors have not adequately addressed future research directions or the theoretical and practical contributions of the study. These aspects need to be expanded to enhance the value and impact of the conclusion.

 

Thank you for your effort in preparing this manuscript. While there are areas that need significant revision, I encourage the authors to carefully address the feedback provided and further improve the paper. I look forward to a more refined version in the future.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which helped us improve our article. Attached are our responses to your review.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a supplementary working document for the disciplines involved (sustainable poultry production, market trends, marketing, health, economics). A well-established quantitative analysis with factorial analysis is suggested to improve the presentation of Table 1 of results.
The age segment of the population needs to be identified and a qualitative inference made regarding the popularity of poultry meat as a source of protein, given that one of the food trends among young people aged 14-22 is a shift towards healthy snacks by 2030-2050.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which helped us improve our article.

Authors' responses are attached.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript explores consumer decision-making around poultry consumption in the context of sustainability, grounding the analysis in the Eco-nomic Theory of Consumer Choice. Using data from a nationally representative survey (AgriFood 2024), you applied exploratory factor analysis to identify the main drivers of poultry purchase. The findings reveal that taste, health, and convenience — the “THC model”, dominate decision-making, while ethical and environmental concerns play only a marginal role. Based on these insights, you propose communication guidelines that emphasise personal benefits, while framing poultry as a relatively sustainable protein option.

There are several strengths of your manuscript. Your study’s first strength lies in its clear topical relevance. The third strength concerns methodological soundness. Your use of exploratory factor analysis is appropriate for uncovering latent drivers, and the inclusion of standard tests such as KMO, Bartlett’s test, and Cronbach’s alpha reassures readers of the reliability of your approach. The practical orientation of the work is another asset. By turning statistical insights into concrete marketing communication guidelines, you provide applied value for policymakers and industry stakeholders interested in sustainability messaging. Equally important is the attention to the attitude–behaviour gap. You add theoretical depth and align your study with a wider body of behavioural research. Taken together, these strengths make your paper both relevant and impactful, combining a timely focus, a strong dataset, methodological rigour, applied recommendations, and thoughtful interpretation of consumer behaviour.

Overall, your manuscript addresses a timely and relevant question, applying a solid dataset and appropriate statistical tools to yield meaningful insights. The identification of the THC model offers a useful framework, and the practical recommendations provide applied value. However, the current version still requires improvements in theoretical anchoring, balanced contextualisation of poultry, and more specific marketing guidance. With refinement in language, interpretation, and critical engagement, the paper has the potential to make a strong contribution to sustainability and consumer behaviour research.

Below are my suggestions for improvement.

1. Positioning within literature

While you reference broad sustainability and consumption debates, your theoretical anchoring could be more precise. The link between the Eco-nomic Theory of Consumer Choice and your empirical findings is not sufficiently explained.

Suggestions for Improvement: You should expand the conceptual section to show how your THC model relates back to this theoretical framework, clarifying how utility maximisation or trade-offs are reflected in your results.

 

2. Overemphasis on poultry

Although poultry is rightly positioned as a sustainable alternative to red meat, the paper risks reading as promotional rather than analytical. The sustainability profile of poultry could be contextualised against plant-based proteins or alternative dietary strategies.

Suggestions for Improvement: Adding a balanced reflection on poultry’s environmental and ethical limitations (e.g., feed, animal welfare) would make your analysis more credible and nuanced.

 

3. Factor analysis interpretation

While the statistical procedures are carefully described, the interpretation of factors occasionally drifts into descriptive reporting rather than theoretical interpretation.

Suggestions for Improvement: You should connect factor loadings more clearly with behavioural theory, explaining why taste, health, and convenience dominate over ethical concerns. This would elevate your discussion beyond statistics to behavioural insights.

 

4. Communication guidelines

The proposed marketing recommendations are valuable but remain generic. Statements such as emphasising “health benefits” or “ease of preparation” are self-evident and risk being dismissed as superficial.

Suggestions for Improvement: You are suggested to provide examples of how these strategies could be operationalised in campaigns, eco-labelling, or targeted interventions, showing originality and applied depth.

 

5. Language and structure

The manuscript is mostly readable, but some sentences are overly long and occasionally awkward, which reduces clarity. For example, the transitions between methodological details and interpretation are abrupt.

Suggestions for Improvement: A thorough language edit to shorten sentences and streamline transitions would improve readability and accessibility for an international audience.

 

6. Limitations

You note that the study is limited to Polish consumers, but this is underdeveloped. Cultural specificity and self-report bias require greater emphasis.

Suggestions for Improvement: You should expand the limitations to discuss how cultural context might shape the dominance of the THC model and whether similar patterns would be expected elsewhere.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is understandable, but the style could be improved to make the argument clearer and more concise. Some sentences are longer than necessary, which can reduce readability. For instance, in the abstract (lines 22–24): “Poultry, due to its relatively low carbon footprint and favorable health indicators, holds significant potential to become a central component of the so-called ‘protein transition’.” This is grammatically correct but could be streamlined to: “Poultry, with its relatively low carbon footprint and favourable health profile, could play a central role in the ‘protein transition’.”

Similarly, in lines 25–27: “…and to propose recommendations for marketing communication strategies that position poultry as a choice aligned with sustainability goals.” This could be shortened to: “…and to propose marketing strategies that present poultry as a sustainable choice.”

A careful edit to shorten sentences and smooth transitions would enhance clarity while keeping the meaning intact.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which helped us improve our article.

Authors' responses are attached.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ok

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which helped us improve our article.

Authors' responses are attached.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the manuscript. However, several weaknesses and areas for improvement should be addressed to enhance the validity, generalizability, and overall contribution of the study. My comments are as follows:

1. Writing Style and Logical Flow

The writing remains overly verbose and lacks conciseness. Additionally, the overall logical structure of the manuscript requires significant improvement.

2. Response to Previous Feedback on Research Methods

The author(s) have made only minor revisions in response to my previous comments regarding the research methods. Substantial modifications are still needed to address the concerns raised.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough proofreading is recommended to improve the manuscript’s readability and to ensure that its key contributions are conveyed clearly and effectively.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your contribution to improving our article. Please find attached your response.
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author done the all comments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your contribution to improving our article.

Authors