I Don’t Buy It! A Critical Review of the Research on Factors Influencing Sustainable Fashion Buying Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured and critically engaging literature review that explores the key factors influencing sustainable fashion consumption. Nonetheless, there are several areas where the paper could be further strengthened:

1. Limited sample of reviewed studies (n=15) – The small number of included studies significantly weakens the generalizability and robustness of the findings. To improve the reliability of the conclusions, the authors are encouraged to expand their sample and incorporate more recent and diverse literature on the topic.
2. Lack of detailed product-level analysis – While the authors acknowledge price differences and consumer behavior variations across product types (e.g., jeans vs. t-shirts), the analysis remains surface-level. A more in-depth comparison across clothing categories and materials (e.g., organic cotton vs. recycled polyester) could reveal important consumption patterns and strengthen the overall argument.
3. Limited geographic and demographic scope – The authors rightly highlight the Western-centric and female-focused nature of the current research. However, their proposed solutions are vague. The paper would benefit from more concrete recommendations for future studies, such as targeting underrepresented regions like Latin America or the Middle East.
4. Lack of actionable insights for practitioners – Although the paper acknowledges the relevance of the findings for policymakers and marketers, it does not provide clear practical recommendations. Adding a dedicated section with suggestions for awareness campaigns, retail strategies, or labelling initiatives (e.g., integration of Product Environmental Footprint labels) could significantly enhance the paper’s applicability.

Author Response

Comments 1: This is a well-structured and critically engaging literature review that explores the key factors influencing sustainable fashion consumption. Nonetheless, there are several areas where the paper could be further strengthened:

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive comments. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work, and your insights have been helpful in improving the quality and clarity of the paper.

 

Comment 2: Limited sample of reviewed studies (n=15) – The small number of included studies significantly weakens the generalizability and robustness of the findings. To improve the reliability of the conclusions, the authors are encouraged to expand their sample and incorporate more recent and diverse literature on the topic.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge the limited number of included studies; however, this is a result of our deliberately narrow focus on the behavioral dimension of sustainable consumption—specifically, green apparel purchasing behavior. Our multi-stage review process involved screening titles and abstracts, followed by full-text assessments, reducing the initial pool of 52 studies to 15 that met our strict inclusion criteria. While additional studies on GABB may exist, they may not have been published in relevant journals or may not focus explicitly on purchasing decisions. Broader reviews address sustainable fashion consumption more generally; but none focus specifically on green apparel purchasing decisions. We therefore direct readers to those broader works in the field to complement our more targeted perspective. 

 

Comment 3: Lack of detailed product-level analysis – While the authors acknowledge price differences and consumer behavior variations across product types (e.g., jeans vs. t-shirts), the analysis remains surface-level. A more in-depth comparison across clothing categories and materials (e.g., organic cotton vs. recycled polyester) could reveal important consumption patterns and strengthen the overall argument.

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable feedback and insightful suggestion. We have addressed this point by emphasizing that differences between clothing materials and manufacturing processes are underrepresented in the current research landscape and should be analyzed in future studies. Additionally, we have added references demonstrating how sustainability cues can influence brand attitudes in the context of sustainable fashion. As we found limited research in this specific area, we also drew on studies from the field of sustainable packaging to illustrate how different materials can impact consumer behavior.

 

Comment 4: Limited geographic and demographic scope – The authors rightly highlight the Western-centric and female-focused nature of the current research. However, their proposed solutions are vague. The paper would benefit from more concrete recommendations for future studies, such as targeting underrepresented regions like Latin America or the Middle East.

Response 4: Thank you for this important point. We agree with your observation and have revised Section 4.4 Geographical Scope and Sample Composition accordingly. In the updated version, we have included more concrete recommendations for future research, such as the inclusion of underrepresented regions like Latin America and the Middle East. 

 

Comment 5: Lack of actionable insights for practitioners – Although the paper acknowledges the relevance of the findings for policymakers and marketers, it does not provide clear practical recommendations. Adding a dedicated section with suggestions for awareness campaigns, retail strategies, or labelling initiatives (e.g., integration of Product Environmental Footprint labels) could significantly enhance the paper’s applicability.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge the importance of providing actionable insights for practitioners. In response, we have added a new section titled 4.5 Practical Implications. This section includes a dedicated table outlining specific recommendations for each of the five identified factor categories: sociodemographics, personal factors, social influence, behavioral factors, and product attributes. Additionally, we discuss potential overlaps and interaction effects between these practical implications.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides an analytical review of existing literature on green clothing purchasing behavior (GABB) and identifies methodological shortcomings while identifying five key driving factors. This work has done a lot of content, but there are still some issues that need improvement.

1. The description of sustainable products in the introduction section is too complex and difficult to understand. It is recommended to reorganize the language.
2. The introduction lacks a clear description of the work done in this article.
3. Page 2, line 86: missing parentheses on one side.
4. Please specify the difference between “n”and “N”.
5. The introduction of each part of the literature in the table is not very clear.
6. The format of the research quantity n in the article is inconsistent, such as “n=2”and “n = 3”, please unify 
7. Can you briefly introduce the “Generation Y”and “Generation Z”.
8. The introduction section proposes the concept of "attitude-behavior gap", which can briefly explain its meaning.
9. In the element of social impact, the "face" of Chinese people is mentioned. Just list whether this example is insufficient. Please provide other examples to prove the impact of social impact on sustainability.
10. The discussion in the research design section is too long to grasp the key points of the work to be done.
11. The work done in the article is relatively vague, with paragraphs that are too long and inconvenient to read.

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper provides an analytical review of existing literature on green clothing purchasing behavior (GABB) and identifies methodological shortcomings while identifying five key driving factors. This work has done a lot of content, but there are still some issues that need improvement.

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your helpful and detailed feedback. Your input has been valuable in improving the clarity and overall quality of our work, and we truly appreciate the time you took to review our paper.

 

Comment 2: The description of sustainable products in the introduction section is too complex and difficult to understand. It is recommended to reorganize the language.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the description of sustainable products to improve clarity and ensure better readability. 

 

Comment 3: The introduction lacks a clear description of the work done in this article.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the need for a clearer description of the work presented in our article. We have revised the final part of the introduction to explicitly outline the objectives and contributions of the paper. Additionally, we clarified how our focus on green apparel buying behavior (GABB) differentiates from broader research on sustainable fashion consumption, which also includes antecedents of GABB.

 

Comment 4: Page 2, line 86: missing parentheses on one side.

Response 4: Thank you for your feedback, we have added the parentheses. 

 

Comment 5: Please specify the difference between “n”and “N”.

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback, we have unified the format of the research quantity to “n”. 

 

Comment 6: The introduction of each part of the literature in the table is not very clear.

Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. We are not entirely sure if your comment refers to the written description of Table 1 in Section 3.1 or to the table itself. If it concerns the description, we are happy to revise the wording to improve clarity. If the comment refers to the table, we are unsure whether you are referring to the "Topic" column or suggesting an additional column to indicate the classification of each study based on the identified factor categories (sociodemographic, personal, behavioral, social influences, and product attributes).

 

Comment 7: The format of the research quantity n in the article is inconsistent, such as “n=2”and “n = 3”, please unify 

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback, we have revised these parts, and unified the format of the research quantity to “n=X”. 

 

Comment 8: Can you briefly introduce the “Generation Y” and “Generation Z”. 

Response 8: Thank you for your feedback. We have added the age ranges for Generation Y (born between 1981 and 1996) and Generation Z (born between 1997 and 2012) to clarify the generational classification used in the manuscript. 

 

Comment 9: The introduction section proposes the concept of "attitude-behavior gap", which can briefly explain its meaning.

Response 9: Thank you for your feedback, we have revised the section which proposed the attitude-behavior gap, in the following way: “However, a substantial body of research shows that interest in, or positive attitudes toward, sustainability do not necessarily result in sustainable behavior (e.g. [17,18]). In the field of behavioral psychology this phenomenon, which describes an inconsistency between expressed attitudes and behavioral outcome, is commonly known as the ‘attitude-behavior gap’.”

 

Comment 10: In the element of social impact, the "face" of Chinese people is mentioned. Just list whether this example is insufficient. Please provide other examples to prove the impact of social impact on sustainability.

Response 10: Thank you for your feedback. Social influence was addressed in relatively few of the reviewed studies. However, as noted in our discussion section, other reviews have demonstrated that social influence can play an important role in sustainable consumption behavior. We acknowledge that the current examples in our manuscript may be limited and have clarified this point accordingly, in the 3.2.3. Social Influence. 

 

Comment 11: The discussion in the research design section is too long to grasp the key points of the work to be done.

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable feedback! We have substantially revised and streamlined Section 4.1 Research Design to improve clarity and ensure the key points are more accessible. In the revised version, we focus more explicitly on the following core issues: the lack of experimental and longitudinal designs in GABB research.

 

Comment 12: The work done in the article is relatively vague, with paragraphs that are too long and inconvenient to read.

Response 12: Thank you for your feedback. Based on your suggestion, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and revised several paragraphs to improve clarity and readability. Specifically, we shortened overly long sections and restructured some content to make key arguments more concise and accessible.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the pleasure of reviewing the manuscript titled “I don’t buy it! A critical review of the research on factors influencing sustainable fashion buying behavior” to be considered for publication in "Sustainability." The research seems sound and provides fairly interesting findings, yet it requires some improvements. Specifics are below:

• The title: The title is ok.
• The abstract: The abstract is comprehensive and clear. However, it should be mentioned how the systematic review and critical analysis of the available literature on GABB was carried out.
• The introduction:
• I believe that the research gap should be shown more clearly and how the study contributes to filling it, with the necessity of explaining how the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework is used.
• In my opinion, this research idea is good and would be more attractive if the negative role of the textile industry in the environment was shown with statistics.
• Methodology: seem to be thorough.
• Overall, Section 2. Materials and Methods and 3. Results were presented in a very acceptable and organized manner.
• Is it possible to add where these 15 studies were conducted, and to compare, even if only by including a figure?
• Discussion: The discussion section was designed to summarize the findings of the 15 studies.
• The theoretical and practical contributions should be more clearly highlighted in the conclusion.
• It is suggested to add a section explaining how future studies can overcome the limitations.
• Overall, despite the limited number of studies analyzed (15), the research is sound and the concept is acceptable.

Author Response

Comment 1: I had the pleasure of reviewing the manuscript titled “I don’t buy it! A critical review of the research on factors influencing sustainable fashion buying behavior” to be considered for publication in "Sustainability." The research seems sound and provides fairly interesting findings, yet it requires some improvements. Specifics are below:

Response 1: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your careful review and the helpful suggestions you provided. Your comments have contributed to refining and strengthening our manuscript.

 

Comment 2: The abstract is comprehensive and clear. However, it should be mentioned how the systematic review and critical analysis of the available literature on GABB was carried out.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. In response, we have revised the abstract to explicitly outline how the systematic-narrative literature review was carried out. 

 

Comment 3: I believe that the research gap should be shown more clearly and how the study contributes to filling it, with the necessity of explaining how the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework is used. In my opinion, this research idea is good and would be more attractive if the negative role of the textile industry in the environment was shown with statistics.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the research motivation and identified research gap. We have revised the final part of the introduction to more clearly articulate the objectives and contributions of the paper. Additionally, we have included a section in the introduction that presents key statistics on the environmental impact of the textile industry to better contextualize the relevance of our research.

 

Comment 4: Methodology: seem to be thorough. Overall, Section 2. Materials and Methods and 3. Results were presented in a very acceptable and organized manner. Is it possible to add where these 15 studies were conducted, and to compare, even if only by including a figure?

Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. The geographical scope of the studies is already presented in the table (with country details) and discussed in the text, where we outline the number of studies per continent. 

 

Comment 5: The discussion section was designed to summarize the findings of the 15 studies. The theoretical and practical contributions should be more clearly highlighted in the conclusion. It is suggested to add a section explaining how future studies can overcome the limitations. Overall, despite the limited number of studies analyzed (15), the research is sound and the concept is acceptable.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that the theoretical and practical contributions were too brief in the original manuscript. In response, we have outlined the theoretical contributions at the beginning of the discussion section and added a dedicated section for practical contributions (Section 4.5: Practical Implications). This section includes a dedicated table outlining specific recommendations for each of the five identified factor categories: sociodemographics, personal factors, social influence, behavioral factors, and product attributes. We chose to separate these contributions to ensure that practitioners have easy access to the relevant insights.
Additionally, in response to your suggestion regarding future research, we have revised Section 5 and renamed it “Recommendations for Future Research.” This section now summarizes the key methodological limitations identified in the reviewed studies and outlines specific ways future research can address each of these issues.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All suggestions are accepted so I don't have any other comments. I recomend this research for publishing.