Leveraging Customer Green Behavior Toward Green Marketing Mix and Electronic Word-of-Mouth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a good work about leveraging customer green behaviour. Authors proposes a model to describe green buying behaviour and green WOM. It is a valuable model that has certain significances for economic development. Some revisions/clarifications are needed as follows.
1. Do not use abbreviation in the title, please use the full name.
2. In Figure 1, effects of various assumptions is unidirectional. In real life, these influences should be bidirectional. Have the authors considered this issue? Please make revisions in the image.
3. In Research Design, what are the criteria for selecting participants? Please provide the backgrounds of the participants, such as students, workers, teachers, and executives.
4. Section 6.4 and 6.5 should be listed separately, not included in the Discussion section. Please adjust them.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for their detailed and helpful feedback regarding our manuscript, and for providing us with the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript as suggested and addressed your concerns below. If there were specific ways, you would like us to address any remaining concerns, please let us know.
Sincerely Yours
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper is promising (how green marketing mix impacts customer green brand trust, customer green buying behavior, and electronic word-of-mouth) but some aspects need to be reconsidered, such as:
- One explanation is needed as to why only 3Ps are considered. In the cited references, the mix has 4 Ps(for instance ref no 5: Mahmoud, M.A et al.,2024).
It is neglected one of the main 4Ps -the placement/distribution that might involve sustainable logistics, eco-friendly packaging, or reduced carbon footprints in supply chains such as local sourcing.
- "Environmentally products" is incorrect, "Environmentally" is an adverb. The correct phrase is "environmentally friendly products" or "environmentally sustainable products." (Green products/ Sustainable products/ Environmentally friendly products/ Eco-friendly products).
- Present theoretical background and empirical research for the construct “trust”, brand trust-green brand trust.
- Consider addressing and explaining the paper structure at the end of the introduction.
Hope my comments are helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. All the best!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some associations need to be checked with literature, such as "Environmentally products".
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for their detailed and helpful feedback regarding our manuscript, and for providing us with the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript as suggested and addressed your concerns below. If there were specific ways, you would like us to address any remaining concerns, please let us know.
Sincerely Yours
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirstly, the presentation needs improvement from the typo in the Abstract, 'hyphoteses' in the Abstract through to the numbering of references at the end. Carefully check the revised manuscript throughout please.
Secondly, the marketing mix is nearly 40 years old now. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but relationship marketing and the service-dominant logic has arrived subsequently. Not engaging with these or utilising the most recent, the service-dominant logic is theoretically weak. The hypotheses are sufficiently open or flexible so as to accommodate the more recent theoretical lenses and the paper should be developed to incorporate recent theory and concepts, perhaps even at the expense of the marketing mix.
Thirdly, the methodology section does not include any statement on methodology, only methods. Include a scientific justification for a positivist methodology, especially as the hypotheses appear somewhat bland, especially without deeper theoretical underpinning from the literature.
Fourthly, the subsection theoretical implications really only deals with the empirical. Engage thoroughly with theory and the concepts employed in the revised version.
Fifthly, the discussion section needs deepening and this should be easier once other revisions have adequately been taken on board.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeeds improvement as part of addressing the formatting issues noted above.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for their detailed and helpful feedback regarding our manuscript, and for providing us with the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript as suggested and addressed your concerns below. If there were specific ways, you would like us to address any remaining concerns, please let us know.
Sincerely Yours
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explores how the green marketing mix affects customer green brand trust, customer green buying behavior, and electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). Structural equation modelling (SEM) and mediation analysis were applied to validate research hypotheses. The topic is interesting and relevant with the current trend of customer demand for sustainability branding.
The introduction adequately provided the background and the gap in the existing literature. The methodology applied seems to be suitable to answer the research questions.
The authors can improve the hypotheses development section to strengthen the arguments for the hypotheses.
For Green Product, it can be termed as "Perceived green product quality" or "Green product quality" to capture the concept better. For H1 & H2, more past literature can be used to support the arguments. What does "the comfort of Green marketing price" mean? The definitions of all the constructs in the model can be explained in the Literature Review section.
For the measurements, it would be helpful if the explanations of what each construct is measuring are discussed.
Overall, this is a paper with good potential if the comments above are addressed adequately.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for their detailed and helpful feedback regarding our manuscript, and for providing us with the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the Reviewers’ recommendations. We did our best to give diligent and thoughtful consideration to each of the issues raised by the Reviewers in revising the paper.
Sincerely Yours
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is able to explore the impact of the green marketing mix on green brand trust of customers, buying behavior, and electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). The use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) contributes empirically to the study. There are limitations. The study is informative but the lack of qualitative data does not allow for a deep investigation of the motivations of consumers. Follow-up studies can involve interviews or focus groups to provide richness to findings. The study is also primarily with Yum China Holdings, limiting transferability. Comparison within different industries might provide greater applicability. While the study highlights the role of trust in green marketing, external drivers such as government policies and pressures from competition must be considered as well. Clarification of constructs and reduction of redundant explanations would make the text easier to read. Overall, the research is a robust contribution, but broadening its scope and diversity of methods would enhance its impact.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe essay demonstrates a good and well-structured expression of ideas; however, there are certain areas where language quality should be corrected. While the overall readability is satisfactory, some sentences are complex and can be simplified for clarity. There are too many grammatical errors, awkward expressions, and redundancy in the expression of things, particularly in hypothesis generation and discussion. In addition, certain words and phrases must be phrased more precisely to enhance coherence and flow. Transition words can be utilized more effectively to enable smoother transition between concepts. Lastly, minor typographical errors must be removed to enhance professionalism. Thorough proofreading or professional language editing would help enhance clarity, concision, and overall readability, making the findings and arguments better conveyed to a global audience.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for their detailed and helpful feedback regarding our manuscript, and for providing us with the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the Reviewers’ recommendations. We did our best to give diligent and thoughtful consideration to each of the issues raised by the Reviewers in revising the paper.
Sincerely Yours
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
First of all, I would like to say that the idea of the article is interesting and relevant. Unfortunately, in its current form, the article presents a number of issues that prevent me from recommending its publication. In this regard, I would like to mention the following.
The introduction appears to lack clarity and focus. The research questions should be clearly formulated and introduced in a way that captures the reader's attention. The entire introduction should be restructured so that it fulfills its primary role—namely, to announce the central research problem, engage the reader, and outline the major objectives of the study.
The literature review section is superficially presented, lacking depth, and, unfortunately, the research hypotheses are unclearly formulated. In some cases, it is difficult to understand exactly what these hypotheses refer to.
Furthermore, I have some concerns regarding the research methodology. Firstly, it is unclear how the respondents were contacted. Did the company provide the authors with the clients’ contact details, or how was the contact process carried out? Additionally, there is the issue of sampling, where the study’s limitations and potential challenges in generalizing the results should be explicitly addressed. From the outset, I find the focus on a single company problematic—even though it has a vast national network, the territorial distribution of respondents is not clearly presented. These methodological concerns cast doubts on the study’s results and the possibility of generalizing the conclusions.
Moreover, although the article addresses current and modern issues, it does not convincingly demonstrate its novelty or its contribution to filling a gap in the existing literature. Additionally, while the introduction states that the research limitations will be discussed, these are not clearly and objectively formulated.
I hope this feedback does not discourage you in your research endeavors, and I wish you success in your future projects!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article requires improvement.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for their detailed and helpful feedback regarding our manuscript, and for providing us with the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the Reviewers’ recommendations. We did our best to give diligent and thoughtful consideration to each of the issues raised by the Reviewers in revising the paper.
Sincerely Yours
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease remove section 6.4 and 6.5 in the new section (7. Conclusion).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thanks for your valuable suggestions. The part 6.4 and 6.5 has moved to part 7. Conclusion
Sincerely Yours
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Unfortunately, the revision is not sufficient to recommend publication. The introduction remains unconvincing and does not fulfill its essential role in a scientific article. It has not been revised and improved to smoothly and effectively introduce the reader to the research topic.
Additionally, concerns remain regarding the formulation of hypotheses and the research methodology. The hypotheses are not clearly formulated and are difficult to understand. Furthermore, the methodology has not been revised to clarify how respondents were contacted and how the sampling was conducted.
A major concern also remains the focus on a single company.
Again, I hope this will not discourage you from pursuing future research endevours.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article requires English language revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank for your detailed and helpful feedback regarding our manuscript, and for providing us with the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the your recommendations. We did our best to give diligent and thoughtful consideration to each of the issues in revising the paper. However, if there were specific ways, you would like us to address any remaining concerns, please let us know.
Sincerely Yours
