How Does Sustainability Affect Consumer Choices in the Fashion Industry?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper investigates consumers' perspectives and practices on the topic of sustainability implemented in the fashion industry. It is a very current topic, but in the paper certain aspects still need to be improved.
Figure 1 - more comments are needed, justifying why you included it in the paper
Table 2 - please replace "Key Research Question" with "Key Research Questions "
Sample - more comments are needed, why you consider it representative, how you chose people?
Please mention in the paper the software used.
How can the results be extrapolated, what is the margin of error?
More comparisons of the results obtained with other similar studies need to be included in section discussion.
What are the limits of the paper and managerial implications?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for the important comments that you send to us. We implement all of them, and comment it, as you can check below and in the attach.
All the best.
The paper investigates consumers' perspectives and practices on the topic of sustainability implemented in the fashion industry. It is a very current topic, but in the paper certain aspects still need to be improved.
Figure 1 - more comments are needed, justifying why you included it in the paper
R: Thank you for your comment, in this case a brief sentence was introduced as the main focus is to gain an overall visual notion of the broadness of the concept of sustainability. The focal point of this dissertation is however sustainability in the fashion industry, so a long description would make no sense in this case.
Table 2 - please replace "Key Research Question" with "Key Research Questions "
R: Thank you for the correction.
Sample - more comments are needed, why you consider it representative, how you chose people?
R: Thank you for your comment. The sample was chosen casually. As we are talking about consumer behavior it was important to create a heterogeneous and diversified sample. The sample is small and although being a representation of consumers it can be further developed in future research.
Please mention in the paper the software used.
R: Thank you, a sentence has been added were the software used was mentioned.
How can the results be extrapolated, what is the margin of error?
R: Thank you for your comment. The margin of error was not contemplated in this research as this is a first approach to the topic. For further research it will be very positive to incorporate such information as its relevance is undeniable.
More comparisons of the results obtained with other similar studies need to be included in section discussion.
R: Thank you very much. Some additional information was added. The broadness and complexity of the topic under analysis represented in this research, means a great starting point for further research in the future.
What are the limits of the paper and managerial implications?
R: Thank you, limitations are already added on the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I compliment the authors for the work presented and send my review in an attached document.
I hope to contribute to its qualitative increase.
Good luck.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your comments. We implemented and commented all of them as you can check below and in the attach.
All the best.
I greet the authors of the article.
Here is my review:
1 The topic is current and timely;
R: Thank you for your comment.
2 Abstract:
- The meaning of the first sentence is very restrictive of reality. It must be changed, emphasizing the fact that because it is a very polluting industry, it has a lot of potential for change and not that one fact implies the other;
R: Thank you for your comment. The word only was removed as it can restrict the reality. In fact, the fashion industry is one of the most polluting industries in the world and that is closely related with its potential for sustainability implementation and improvement. Both aspects are closely intertwined.
3 Introduction:
3.1 References must be numbered according to the order in which they appear in the article - see guidelines;
R: Thank you for your comment. We considered it.
3.2 The sentence started on line 54, where it is stated that consumers play an important role in the implementation of sustainability, is impactful and needs to be substantiated with quotes from authors;
R: Thank you for your comment, it is of extreme relevance and was already added.
3.3 I suggest changing the term "dissertation", which appears several times throughout the article, for research, article or study;
R: Thank you for the suggestion. Changes were made.
3.4 The ideas presented should follow a greater chain, in order to make the reading more fluid. For example, at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph, if the sentence starts with "In the fashion industry, ..." the reader realizes that it is a bridge from a more generalist idea to the specificity of the topic under discussion, in a natural way;
R: I appreciate your comment and totally agree. The structure was revised, and some changes were added.
3.5 It is necessary to revise the language, namely any missing punctuation.
R: Thank you for your comment.
4 Literature review:
4.1 The numbering of points and subpoints is wrong;
R: Thank you for the correction.
4.2 The Literature Review is pertinent, but it must be restructured. A single point exclusively about sustainability in general (1.1), does not add much to the work, so I suggest that the first point of the RL is "Sustainability in the fashion industry" and that there is a link between the problems of sustainability and this one industry; that the second point is "Consumer choices in the fashion industry"; and that a third point (currently 1.4 Critical Analysis) should unite these themes and direct the reader to the problem that the authors intend to answer;
R: Thank you for your comment. Adaptations were made creating a new Literature Review structure.
4.3 Figure 1 is incorrectly numbered.
R: Thank you very much for your correction.
- Methodology
5.1 Table 2.1 is incorrectly numbered;
R: Thank you. Corrections were made.
5.2 Table 2.2 should appear in the appendix and not at this point in the work;
R: Thank you
5.3 In table 2.2, the column "Type of question" should be removed, as it does not add value since all questions are exploratory. This information should come, for example, at the bottom of the table;
R: Thank you the column was already deleted.
5.4 I don't understand why some cells in tables 1 and 2 are colored (last row in table 1 and part of column 2 in table 2);
R: Thank you for your comment. The 2 cells on table present in appendix A are colored because they represent the distinction between the 2 questions that were asked to interviewers which do not have concern for the topic of sustainability in the fashion industry. Nevertheless, in order to maintain a more aesthetical appearance, the color was removed.
5.5 The article would gain greater fluidity in its reading if the authors, in view of these tables, presented the hypotheses under study and substantiated each one of them.
R: Thank you for your comment. Although I can relate to what you say, the idea in this case is to create a dynamic way of exposing the content. Creating tables enables a more visual and organized way of presenting the content under research.
6 Results:
6.1 The information with the characterization of the sample must appear in a table, with figures (graphs) up to 3.5 being unnecessary;
R: Thank you for your comment. Tables were elaborated. Pie charts were replaced.
6.2 Point 3.2 and sub-points 3.2.1 to 3.2.4 should not be included in this part of the work. These are not data collected in the context of the interviews carried out, so they can serve as a basis or argument for discussing or reinforcing certain points of view, but they should not be part of this part of the work.
R: Thank you, this part was already removed.
6.3 There is a need to review typos, punctuation and spacing between letters and words;
R: Thank you for the note.
6.4 Table 3.6 is not very readable;
R: Thank you.
6.5 The findings pointed out from line 983 need to be confronted with the literature.
R: Thank you for your comment.
7 Conclusions:
7.1 Study limitations are lacking;
R: Thank you for your comment. Limitations were added to the paper.
7.2 Contributions to theory and practice are lacking;
R: Thank you for your comment.
7.3 The conclusions should be further elaborated. When reading the title of the article, expectations are raised that the current conclusions do not fully correspond.
R: Thank you for your comment. It is pertinent and was already debated. The topic under research is very broad and this article is just a first approach. Further research will enable a deeper and extensive research that will give a positive input to the development of more ideas and conclusions.
8 References:
8.1 DOI is missing in most references, see guidelines.
R: Thank you for the comment. It is relevant and was already corrected.
I wish I had contributed to the overall improvement of the article. Greetings to the authors and good luck.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is improved, but I still have a questions about the answer to the question below.
1. What do you mean when you say "casually" or is "random"? It is necessary to include in the paper other researches that applied the same methodology for the selection of the sample and if the results of those researches were validated on this type of sample.
2. How can you be sure that if you had chosen another 50 people the answers would have been similar?
Sample - more comments are needed, why you consider it representative, how you chose people?
R: Thank you for your comment. The sample was chosen casually. As we are talking about consumer behavior it was important to create a heterogeneous and diversified sample. The sample is small and although being a representation of consumers it can be further developed in future research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your comments and time.
Regarding you first question “1. What do you mean when you say "casually" or is "random"? It is necessary to include in the paper other researches that applied the same methodology for the selection of the sample and if the results of those researches were validated on this type of sample.”
R: In fact, the sample is a non-probablistic purposive sample with the main objective to validate the model and the first findings. We will reinforce this clarification in the manuscript to be clear. We agree with you, this is a limitation, and we point it out for future research.
- How can you be sure that if you had chosen another 50 people the answers would have been similar?
R: Our approach regarding the sample size was based in saturation principle for achieving an appropriate sample size where we didn’t have new data from the interviews, because we are in an introductory and qualitative study. In fact, we cannot generalize the findings.
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations for your effort to improve the article and for taking into account my suggestions for revision. Good luck for future work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much!
All the best.
