An Exploratory Investigation of Garments’ Production Countries of Origin (COOs) Disclosure to Consumers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent work ...

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study has innovative research idea which focuses on what information regarding the countries-of-origin (COOs) involved in the production of a garment must be communicated to consumers and how such information should be communicated. However, this manuscript has simple research method which is only based on the quantitative questionnaire survey. This research method didn’t sufficient rigorous statistic evidence to support the basic requirement of reliability and validity. The result of this study just shows the demographic information and consumers’ questionnaire survey which are considered as one kind of survey instead of formal academic research. The research is strongly suggested to reinforce the statistics analysis whose research data could fully support the research result.    

To sum up the above comments, this manuscript didn’t fully provide the integrated research statistic analysis to verify the rationality of research results. Therefore, I am regret to declare that this manuscript is rejected by this journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting paper, on a very relevant topic, using a decent methodology. I found it engaging and read it carefully. The paper needs some non-trivial revisions and editing before it is ready for publication. To enhance the quality of the study, the authors must pay attention to several important issues:

-        Although the authors show a good mastery of the language, I strongly suspect English is not their native language. Overall, the paper is written ok-ish, but definitely needs editing by a native English-speaker. For example, the title of the paper is not properly formulated.

-        The Literature review section that could bring support to the information provided in the paper should be expanded. Some references that could be included here are:

o   Nedelcu, M., Dima, A., & Dinulescu, R. (2018). Digital factory–a prerequisite for revitalizing the production sector. In Proceedings of the International Management Conference (Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 520-529)..

o   Dobrin, C. O., & Girneata, A. (2015). Complaining Behaviour and Consumer Safety: Research on Romania Online Shopping. Economic Studies, 24(1), 161-175.

-        Authors must clearly state how they chose the research sample in the study. Also, a description of the investigated population should be provided.

-        I recommend a different section to be included in the paper: “Findings”, where authors can present and detail the findings and importance of the study results.

-        The “Conclusions” part must be developed more in order to summarize the main findings of the research, how the research objectives are met through this study and to whom are the results addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Overview.

This study examines (1) consumers’ knowledge of and interest in the production stages and locations involved in the production of garments and (2) customers’ desire to access the information and (3) the way they want this information communicated. Two research steps were conducted. The first involved administering a quantitative questionnaire survey to 103 respondents.  The second step involved conducting an experiment in which nine consumers’ responses to three fictitious brands, each with web-product pages, were analyzed. The authors find that most respondents consider themselves insufficiently informed about COO information. However, respondents are not as attentive to information related to COO as they claim. An innovation of this research is its focus on the COO for three stages of production (i.e., manufacturing, weaving, and dyeing). 

General Comments

The title implies that this study in exploratory in nature. The use of only nine respondents for the experiment involving the product web pages also implies this is an exploratory study.   However, the presentation of the results and the conclusions section do not caution the reader that the findings are tentative as one might expect with an exploratory study. While the title of section 6 is “Conclusions, limitations and perspectives,” I do not see any discussion of the study’s limitations. This should be added to the manuscript. Section 6 ends with a short paragraph on future research.  As an exploratory study, the discussion of how future research should be conducted to move from tentative to more conclusive findings should be more detailed.

The research questions stated on page 2 are: (1) To what extent must fashion brands communicate COO information regarding the production steps of a garment and (2) How should this information be transmitted to ensure intelligibility for consumers. These research questions are not explicitly mentioned later in the manuscript.  It would be useful to have a statement in the Research Methods section to explain how the steps involving the survey and experiment provides insights into the research questions. Ideally, the conclusion section should be organized around the two research questions. But at a minimum, the conclusions section should remind the reader of the two research questions and include a clear statement of the study’s findings on the two research questions. 

Additional Comments

The paper’s title is confusing.  Should it be: “An Exploratory Investigation of Garments’ Production Countries of Origin Disclosure to Consumers”?

P 2, last par.  The first sentence under the Literature Review section includes a confusing citation to reference [13].  I believe that the systematic literature review mentioned here was conducted by the authors. I do not understand the reference to Tranfield, et. al. (2003).  

p. 8. First paragraph in section 4.2.  How was it determined if the respondent had an understanding of manufacturing, weaving, or dyeing?  Was this the judgment of the interviewer?

Demographic data was collected on the respondents. Was any analysis conducted to explore differences across demographic groups such as age groups?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made the requested changes and improved the quality of the paper.