The Impact of Green Perceived Value Through Green New Products on Purchase Intention: Brand Attitudes, Brand Trust, and Digital Customer Engagement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find attached my comments and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your constructive suggestions and insightful comments, from which we believe our paper benefited significantly. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the connection between green perceived value (GPV) derived from new green products (GNPs) and consumer purchase intentions within the luxury brand sector. Employing partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) on a dataset comprising 572 luxury consumers in China, the findings indicate that GPV significantly affects both brand attitudes and brand trust. Furthermore, brand attitudes and trust demonstrate a positive correlation with purchase intentions. The study also identifies a moderating effect of DCE on the relationship between GPV and brand trust. To bolster purchase intentions for luxury brands, it is critical to enhance brand attitudes and trust by cultivating a multifaceted GPV through GNPs. Additionally, DCE is highlighted as a vital factor in reinforcing the brand trust aspect of GPV. However, several areas could benefit from further clarification and elaboration to improve the overall quality and accessibility of the paper.

1. The manuscript employs specialized terms such as GNP, GPV, and DCE, which may not be familiar to all readers. It is suggested that brief definitions or explanations of these concepts be included early in the text to improve comprehension and enhance clarity for a broader audience.

2. The methodology requires further elaboration. In Section 4.1, the authors mention selecting a single high-end store in Shanghai to test their hypotheses, but do not clarify how many stores were considered or the criteria for choosing this particular store. An explanation of the selection criteria would be beneficial. Additionally, while ten luxury brands from Forbes are chosen (line 422), clarification on the rationale for selecting these specific brands from Forbes, as opposed to select those based on retailer statistics in Shanghai, would also be valuable.

3. The authors should provide a more comprehensive account of the survey process, including the number of customers invited to participate, the number who declined, and any invalid responses. A successful response rate percentage would further enrich the methodological understanding.

4. Reporting the demographics of the 572 respondents is crucial for contextual understanding. While Figure 2 (line 510) indicates the non-significance of demographic factors to purchase intention (PI), a detailed breakdown of these demographics would aid in comprehending the sample better; and additionally, exploring whether these factors moderate GPV, brand attitudes (BA), and brand trust (BT) would add depth to the analysis.

5. The authors indicate that H3b was accepted while H3a was rejected (line 534). An explanation for rejecting H3a, including references to supporting studies, would enhance clarity. Furthermore, the findings related to H1, H2, H3, and H4 are well articulated, but H5 lacks a similar level of discussion. Expanding the discussion on H5 would improve the manuscript's depth and readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to thoroughly proofread the manuscript before publication, as several typographical and grammatical issues have been noted:

1. Authors should ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the manuscript, for example:

   - "luxury brand" (line 175) vs. "luxury brands" (line 276)

   - "brand attitude" (line 271) vs. "brand attitudes" (line 601)

   - "theoretical implication" (line 567) vs. "theoretical implications" (line 568)

   - "managerial implication" (line 599) vs. "managerial implications" (line 600)

2. Subject-Verb Agreement:

   - "GPV through GNPs have a significantly positive effect" should be revised to "GPV through GNPs has a significantly positive effect." (lines 305 and 330)

   - "Consumers’ trust toward green luxury brands have a significantly positive effect" should be corrected to "Consumers’ trust toward green luxury brands has a significantly positive effect." (line 403)

3. Preposition Usage:

   - In the phrase “not only to gaining consumer empathy but also to encouraging purchase,” it should be revised to “not only to gain consumer empathy but also to encourage purchase” (line 622).

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your constructive suggestions and insightful comments, from which we believe our paper benefited significantly. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an increasingly relevant and timely topic—the influence of green perceived value (GPV) derived from green new products (GNPs) on purchase intention in the luxury brand context. It successfully explores the mediating role of brand attitude and trust, along with the moderating effect of digital customer engagement (DCE). The theoretical grounding is substantial, and the empirical execution is generally sound. However, there are several critical areas that require significant improvement in order to strengthen the clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution of the paper.

The study requires further revision before being accepted for publication, which includes:

1. In the introduction, specify explicitly your research questions and what is your motivation to do this study.
2. In the introduction, specify the gap/problem that this study is solving.
3. the literature review and introduction suffer from redundant elaborations of basic concepts (e.g., GPV, emotional/social/conditional values). Multiple sections repeat the same justifications using similar citations. The authors should streamline these discussions and reduce unnecessary duplication.
4. Some terms like “DCE practices” and “GNP signals” are loosely used across the manuscript. Consider standardizing definitions and using terminology consistently.
5. Consider engaging with the most up to date litreture, such as:
   1. Al-Kfairy, M., Shuhaiber, A., Al-Khatib, A.W. and Alrabaee, S., 2023. Social commerce adoption model based on usability, perceived risks, and institutional trust. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, pp.3599-3612.
   2. Nabivi, E., 2025. The Role of Social Media in Green Marketing: How Eco-Friendly Content Influences Brand Attitude and Consumer Engagement. Sustainability, 17(5), p.1965. and many others
6. The descriptive statistics of key constructs (means for DCE, for instance) indicate relatively low scores (~2.5), which could potentially bias moderation effects. This issue should be statistically discussed

Good Luck

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your constructive suggestions and insightful comments, from which we believe our paper benefited significantly. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done excellent work in addressing all my comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Happy to accept