Greenwashing in the Tuna Industry: Implications for Consumers, Businesses and Planetary Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript entitled “Greenwashing in the Tuna Industry: Implications for Consumers, Businesses and Planetary Health” deals with an interesting and important issue. However, you should consider the following comments to improve it.

First, there are some structural issues to be handled. The Introduction section contains several and paragraphs that would rather belong to the literature review, methods, or discussion. Namely, lines between 50 and 77 would better fit in the Literature Review section, lines between 78 and 89 would belong to the Methods section, and lines between 90 and 135 would better fit in the (not existing) Discussion section. In exchange, lines between 269 and 278 in the Methods section would belong to the Literature Review section, where you should explain why you chose the ACCC framework for your primary research and not the others (not choosing some frameworks are explained but not all). In a Discussion section, you should interpret your results, explain the findings’ significance, and compare your results with previous research findings. In this regard, some parts of the Findings section would also belong to the Discussion section (especially at the end of the section). Moreover, the name “Findings” is quite strange, the usual name of this section is “Results.”

More specific comments are as follows: You mention that the “analysis excludes the fourth ACCC principle, which pertains primarily to recycling-related conditions;” however, based on the previous description, it is not about recycling at all (“Explain any conditions or qualifications on claims—clarifying any limitations or specific conditions under which claims apply.”), so there is no reason for omitting it from analysis. You distinguish between empirical research, survey, and experiments; however, survey and experiments (among others) are all part of empirical research (see lines 161-162). The first sentence in line 204 is not really a sentence, it is a subtitle. All footnotes need to be incorporated into the main text body. Concerning the methods, it is not clear how many tuna brands are sold in Australia (and whether you took into consideration imported brands as well), from which 14 has been chosen for examination; why 14 brands have been chosen; and how they were chosen. The sample size of 14 brands seems to be very low. Table 1 is unnecessary, since all information is mentioned in the text. You call questions prompts, but in consumer research, their proper name is items. You have to provide the list of questionnaire items, with their literature source(s). It is not clear how did you choose the threshold between the two clusters of brands; moreover, it is recommended to conduct cluster analysis to arrive at statistically supported clusters. Figure 1 do not need a legend with “Total Score.” Figure 2 needs a “Notes” section explaining what can be seen on the figure. It is not clear how you determined the green, orange, and red areas; i.e. where the thresholds are; Figure 3 needs a “Notes” section with the meaning of the colors.

Lastly, the format of in-text citations do not meet the journal’s requirements at all; moreover, they are not consistent in format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some typos in the text, and some sentences are incomplete and/or need a revision (see, e.g., lines 217-221).

Author Response

Comment 1 First, there are some structural issues to be handled. The Introduction section contains several and paragraphs that would rather belong to the literature review, methods, or discussion. Namely, lines between 50 and 77 would better fit in the Literature Review section, lines between 78 and 89 would belong to the Methods section, and lines between 90 and 135 would better fit in the (not existing) Discussion section. In exchange, lines between 269 and 278 in the Methods section would belong to the Literature Review section, where you should explain why you chose the ACCC framework for your primary research and not the others (not choosing some frameworks are explained but not all).

Response 1 We thank reviewer for the useful comments. We have now made a more robust introduction to achieve the pattern of: Establishing a general context, Explaining the key principles, identifying a gap, Stating the study aims to close the gap, Explaining the study’s significance, and Overview of the study. As a result, it became important, to help the reader follow the narrative regarding the ACCC, to retain a clear definition of the principles in the introduction. In a similar way, we have now established a more comprehensive and thorough treatment of the methodology.

Comment 2 n a Discussion section, you should interpret your results, explain the findings’ significance, and compare your results with previous research findings. In this regard, some parts of the Findings section would also belong to the Discussion section (especially at the end of the section).

Response 2 Thank you for this helpful observations. We agree that the Discussion section should go beyond presenting results by interpreting and situating them in relation to prior research, and highlighting their significance. We have now revised the manuscript and included discussion on pages 15 and 16.

Comment 3 Moreover, the name “Findings” is quite strange, the usual name of this section is “Results.”

Response 3 Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that “Results” is the more conventional term. We have now renamed the “Findings” section to “Results” to align with common academic practice and ensure clarity for readers.

Comment 4 More specific comments are as follows: You mention that the “analysis excludes the fourth ACCC principle, which pertains primarily to recycling-related conditions;” however, based on the previous description, it is not about recycling at all (“Explain any conditions or qualifications on claims—clarifying any limitations or specific conditions under which claims apply.”), so there is no reason for omitting it from analysis.

Response 4 We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to clarify why the ACCC’s fourth principle should be excluded from the scoring process. As now explained in the text, Principle 4 is generally most applicable where environmental claims are conditional on consumer behaviour or circumstances (e.g., recycling contingent on access to facilities). In the context of the products reviewed here, however, the claims observed focused almost exclusively on fishing practices and sourcing standards, presented as absolute rather than qualified. Because we did not encounter meaningful instances of conditional claims that could be scored, including this principle would not have generated additional variation across brands. For this reason, the analysis was restricted to the seven principles that were more directly relevant to the product category. 

Comment 5 You distinguish between empirical research, survey, and experiments; however, survey and experiments (among others) are all part of empirical research (see lines 161-162). The first sentence in line 204 is not really a sentence, it is a subtitle.

Response 5 Thank You for your observation. The mentioned lines have been revised.

Comment 6 All footnotes need to be incorporated into the main text body.

Response 6 hank you for this suggestion. We have now revised the manuscript and integrated all footnotes into the main text body to improve readability and consistency with the journal’s formatting guidelines.

Comment 7 Concerning the methods, it is not clear how many tuna brands are sold in Australia (and whether you took into consideration imported brands as well), from which 14 has been chosen for examination; why 14 brands have been chosen; and how they were chosen. The sample size of 14 brands seems to be very low. 

Response 7 Thank you for your observations on the clarity and justification of our sample selection. In response, we have revised the Methods section to provide a more detailed explanation of how the 14 tuna brands were selected for analysis. Specifically, we now describe how the sample includes brands available across major Australian supermarket chains (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, IGA) and those featured in consumer sustainability reports such as those published by Greenpeace and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Table 1 has been added to present the estimated market share and ownership status of each brand and demonstrate that the selected brands represent approximately 98% of the total Australian canned tuna market. This therefore provides a robust and representative sample for the Australian context.

Comment 8 Table 1 is unnecessary, since all information is mentioned in the text.

Response 8 We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We therefore reviewed the inclusion of the table in light of the extended methodological explanation and now believe keeping the table will help emphasise and clarify that implementation of the Gompers technique simplifies the processes and thereby removes subjectivity of the scoring system.

Comment 9  You call questions prompts, but in consumer research, their proper name is items.

Response 9 Thank you for this clarification. We have replaced the term “prompts” with “items” to align with established terminology in consumer research.

Comment 10 You have to provide the list of questionnaire items, with their literature source(s).

Response 10 Thank you for the instruction. We have now written an appendix which details the component elements for each Principle along with supporting references for this approach. 

Comment 11 It is not clear how did you choose the threshold between the two clusters of brands; moreover, it is recommended to conduct cluster analysis to arrive at statistically supported clusters.

Response 11 We thank reviewer for the comments. We have applied within-cluster sum of squares to demonstrate two clusters provides the best fit and present the results of the test in the text.

Comment 12 Figure 1 do not need a legend with “Total Score.”

Response 12 We value the reviewer’s comment. The figure has been revised accordingly.

Comment 13 Figure 2 needs a “Notes” section explaining what can be seen on the figure.

Response 13 We thank the reviewer for the recommendation. More complete notes have been added to the title of the figure.

Comment 14 It is not clear how you determined the green, orange, and red areas; i.e. where the thresholds are; Figure 3 needs a “Notes” section with the meaning of the colours.

Response 14 

We thank the reviewer for the useful comments. The green areas represent the scores between 0.5 and 1. The yellow area is for median score (i.e 0.5), and the red area is for score between 0.5 and 0. The greater the score the darker the green area and the lower the score the redder the area is. In other words, as we move from 1 towards 0.5, the area turns from dark green to light green to yellow. In contrast, as we move from 0.5 to 0 the area turns from yellow to orange to red.

Comment 15 Lastly, the format of in-text citations do not meet the journal’s requirements at all; moreover, they are not consistent in format.

Response 15 We thank the reviewer for noting the inconsistency in our in-text citation format. At this stage, we prioritised addressing the major substantive issues raised in the review and will finalise the reorganisation and formatting of references to align fully with the journal’s requirements upon acceptance.

Comment 16 There are some typos in the text, and some sentences are incomplete and/or need a revision (see, e.g., lines 217-221).

Response 16 We conducted a thorough edit of the text, and corrected sentences and applied more readable revisions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a highly topical issue: the evaluation of environmental claims in the canned tuna sector through the construction of an index based on the ACCC principles. The attempt to adapt an existing model (the G-Index) to a specific sectoral context is original and offers interesting insights for both policymakers and consumers, particularly in differentiating between certified and non-certified brands.

The introduction and literature review touch on a range of relevant strands, but they remain somewhat fragmented. What is missing is a clear synthesis that shows the gap this study intends to address. To make the argument more convincing, the paper would benefit from the explicit formulation of one or two research questions. These could then guide the analysis and be revisited in the results and discussion, creating a stronger and more coherent line of reasoning.

On the methodological side, greater transparency is needed. At present, the reader knows little about the sample. A short, dedicated section describing the 14 companies under examination—how they were chosen, which products were included, and the timeframe for data collection—would give the study more credibility. The method itself would also gain from being situated more firmly in the existing literature, particularly by drawing on prior research that has used and validated similar coding procedures or index-based approaches. This would help reassure readers that the chosen strategy is not only innovative but also grounded in established practice.

The most significant shortcoming is the lack of a Discussion section. The results section is straightforward and easy to follow, but it does not go beyond description. The study would gain considerably from a discussion that explains what these findings mean for current debates on greenwashing, certification, and the regulation of environmental claims. Such a section would help underline the relevance of the evidence and the originality of the contribution.

The bibliography, while already substantial in size, could also be refined. The bibliography could be reinforced by engaging more directly with studies on greenwashing in the food and seafood sectors. It would also be valuable to refer to methodological work on how indices and coding frameworks have been designed and tested in other contexts. Finally, drawing on international regulatory texts and policy guidelines would give the article a stronger comparative angle and show its significance beyond the Australian setting.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment for responses to reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major revision comments

1. Clustering language
• The results section talks about “two clusters” of brands. As it stands, this seems based on descriptive score differences rather than a formal cluster analysis.
• Either run a simple clustering test (k-means, hierarchical, etc.) or rephrase to “higher-scoring vs lower-scoring groups.” Otherwise it feels a bit overstated.
2. ACCC(Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) principles numbering
• There’s a mismatch between the principles listed earlier and how they’re described in the Methods section. For example, Principle 4 is about “explaining conditions,” but in Methods it is excluded as if it were about recycling. This inconsistency could confuse readers. 
• Worth double-checking all numbering and exclusions so they align.

Minor revision comments

1. Coding details
• You mention 30 prompts/questions but don’t show the full list or explain coder agreement.
• Adding the list in an appendix or a brief note on inter-rater reliability would increase credibility.
2. References / typos
• A few reference style errors and typos here and there. Quick clean-up needed.
3. Funding / COI wording
• Funding mentions MSC support, but then the Conflicts of Interest statement says “no conflicts.”
• MSC is non-profit, so not a big issue, but since results highlight MSC certification, better to phrase it transparently (e.g., “Funding was provided by MSC; analysis done independently”).

Author Response

Please see the attachment for responses to reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the second round of review, this paper has improved.