Beyond Linear Models: A Hybrid SEM-fsQCA Approach to Understanding Consumer Intentions for Organic Rice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript addresses a significant and contemporary issue by examining consumers' intentions to purchase organic rice in a developing-country context, utilising an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour and a hybrid Structural Equation Model–Factor Analysis approach. The objectives of the research are clearly defined, the empirical context is well justified, and the methodological execution is robust. The utilisation of validated measures, the comprehensive evaluation of the measurement model, and the complementary application of SEM and fsQCA are indicative of the study's notable strengths.

The findings provide meaningful insights, particularly regarding the central role of health consciousness and the differentiated influence of environmental concern and knowledge. The fsQCA analysis contributes to the field by revealing multiple configurational pathways to purchase intention, thereby complementing the linear SEM results.

Notwithstanding, the manuscript would benefit from targeted revisions. Firstly, it is imperative that the theoretical background be substantially condensed, with particular emphasis on the sections pertaining to environmental and health-related antecedents. This approach is essential to minimise repetition and enhance the text's focus. Secondly, the authors should state more explicitly the primary contribution of the study (e.g. theoretical extension, methodological advancement, or contextual insight) in the Introduction and revisit it in the Discussion. Thirdly, the Discussion would benefit from greater integration of SEM and fsQCA findings, highlighting how the two approaches complement or diverge from one another. Finally, the practical implications should be more specific and operational, clearly indicating how the results can inform policy or practice in promoting organic food consumption. The manuscript demonstrates a robust methodological framework and possesses considerable publication potential. However, it necessitates refinement to enhance clarity, synthesis, and its contribution to the field before it can be deemed suitable for acceptance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your time, appreciation, and constructive comments on our work. Below, I provide point by point answer to the issues you have raised.

Comment 1: It is imperative that the theoretical background be substantially condensed, with particular emphasis on the sections pertaining to environmental and health-related antecedents. This approach is essential to minimise repetition and enhance the text's focus.

Response 1: We have taken the necessary steps to improve this section of the manuscript. The changes made are highlighted in yellow for your reference.

 Comment 2: The authors should state more explicitly the primary contribution of the study (e.g. theoretical extension, methodological advancement, or contextual insight) in the Introduction and revisit it in the Discussion.

Response 2: As you instructed, we made the necessary revisions and added the contributions of the study in the introduction section, and also made improvements in the discussion section. These latest changes are highlighted in yellow.

Comment 3: The Discussion would benefit from greater integration of SEM and fsQCA findings, highlighting how the two approaches complement or diverge from one another.

Response 3: You were definitely right. We made the changes accordingly.

Comment 4: The practical implications should be more specific and operational, clearly indicating how the results can inform policy or practice in promoting organic food consumption.

Response 4: We made substantial changes in this section. We kept the primary insights and ensured operational policies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear Authors, The manuscript you submitted was very interesting for me to read and review. The topic you chose is timely and relevant, and the enhanced version of your proposed article will also be interesting for the readers of Businesses. There are certain issues I put in comments for what I strongly believe would enrich your manuscript and assist to reach its full potential. I put all my suggestions in the comments below. Comment 1. The research questions seem overly broad and descriptive. Is there a reason for this concept? If not, could you rewrite it? Comment 2. To me, it is unclear which established assumptions in the theory of planned behaviour or green consumption research this study challenges, refines, or qualifies. Comment 3. The discussion segment of the paper could be written more critically with mixed findings in the literature (recent or state-of-the-art). Comment 4. Would it be beneficial for the study to further elaborate on what fsQCA reveals that SEM does not? Comment 5. There are certain sections of the paper that seem repetitive, mostly in the literature review. Comment 6. Figures need to look more professional and to be written in the same font as the remainder of the proposed manuscript. Comment 7. Tables should be constructed according to the journal’s guidelines. Comment 8. There are many references from the past five years (2025-6; 2024-13; 2023-15; 2022-6; 2021-17). Good job on this. Maybe consider incorporating a few references from 2026, since it's already February.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

I would like to thank you for your constructive feedback on the manuscript. I have made substantial improvements in the manuscript and lighted the changes in yellow. Below, I respond to each of your comments. 

Comment 1. The research questions seem overly broad and descriptive. Is there a reason for this concept? If not, could you rewrite it?

Response 1: Thanks for this meaningful comment. I made substantial improvements in this section of the paper. All the changes are highlighted in yellow.

Comment 2. To me, it is unclear which established assumptions in the theory of planned behaviour or green consumption research this study challenges, refines, or qualifies.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. We agree that the theoretical contribution needed to be articulated more explicitly. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified how our study refines and extends established assumptions within both the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and green consumption research. Specifically, our study contributes in different ways. The traditional TPB framework assumes that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are sufficient proximal predictors of behavioral intention. While extensions of TPB have incorporated additional variables, many studies implicitly treat moral, environmental, or health-related concerns as parallel predictors rather than as potential antecedent belief structures. Our study refines this assumption by examining whether environmental concerns and health consciousness: (1) provide incremental explanatory power beyond TPB constructs, and (2) operate indirectly by shaping the cognitive foundations of attitudes, norms, and perceived control. By testing both direct and mediated pathways, we assess whether these factors merely complement TPB or whether they function as deeper belief-based drivers that restructure the model’s internal logic.

Most TPB-based studies rely on symmetric, net-effect models (e.g., regression), which assume that predictors influence intention independently and uniformly across individuals. By incorporating fsQCA, we challenge this linear sufficiency logic and demonstrate that multiple configurations of environmental, health, and TPB components can lead to high intention. This configurational perspective refines the dominant analytical approach in green consumption research by showing that (1) different combinations of conditions can produce similar outcomes; (2) the absence of one factor does not necessarily prevent high intention if other compensatory conditions are present.

In sum, our study does not reject the Theory of Planned Behavior; rather, it refines its sufficiency assumption, qualifies the dominance of environmental concern in green consumption research, challenges linear causality assumptions through configurational analysis, and contextualizes motivational hierarchies within an emerging market setting. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to make these theoretical implications more explicit. Thanks for this particular comment.

 

Comment 3. The discussion segment of the paper could be written more critically with mixed findings in the literature (recent or state-of-the-art). Comment 4. Would it be beneficial for the study to further elaborate on what fsQCA reveals that SEM does not?

Responses to  3 and 4: We appreciate this comment. We made substantial revisions in the discussion section. We also critically elaborated insights derived from the fsQCA that is hidden in the linear model. The major changes are highlighted in yellow.

 Comment 5. There are certain sections of the paper that seem repetitive, mostly in the literature review.  

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this observation. We respectfully note that what may appear as repetition was, in several instances, intentional reinforcement aimed at ensuring conceptual clarity and coherence across distinct theoretical subsections. Because this study integrates environmental factors, health-related motivations, and the traditional components of the Theory of Planned Behavior into a unified framework, some conceptual overlap was necessary to: Clearly distinguish related but theoretically distinct constructs (e.g., environmental concern versus environmental knowledge; health consciousness versus health status), Reconnect extended variables to the TPB foundation, and Maintain logical continuity between hypothesis development and model construction. That said, we carefully revisited the literature review to improve conciseness and reduce any unnecessary reiteration, particularly the theoretical background. We believe these revisions preserve the theoretical depth of the review while improving readability and structural flow.

Comment 6. Figures need to look more professional and to be written in the same font as the remainder of the proposed manuscript. Response 6 & 7: we made important changes to the figures and also aligned the tables that looked different from the others. All the tables are now in APA format.

Comment 8. There are many references from the past five years (2025-6; 2024-13; 2023-15; 2022-6; 2021-17). Good job on this. Maybe consider incorporating a few references from 2026, since it's already February. Response 8: Thanks for this remark. I have tried to incorporate studies from 2026, but I finally decided not to do so since key independent variables were not included.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revised iteration you sent and your responses. By comparing the first and this iteration of the proposed manuscript, along with the responses in which you elaborated on the changes you made, I saw that you accepted everything that would enhance your paper and made the changes successfully. I am satisfied with the current iteration, you only need to adjust tables and fonts in figures. I understood that you did not included any reference from 2026, but consider it once again.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the ultimate comments. I am glad you were satisfied with the primary changes made to the manuscript. For the latest concern, I adjusted all the fonts and also added some new references dated 2026. All the changes are highlighted.