Effects of Retailers’ Corporate Social Responsibility on Retailer Equity and Consumer Usage Intention

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I liked the article as direct to the point.

I have just two remarks:

1. The abstract should be improved in order to make it more clear for a reader. It seems the English language grammatically is correct, but for the reader the content is not clear. Thus, main review needed.
2. As the article is of the marketing and CSR area, maybe it (marketing and even retailer brand equity) should be included in keywords. Please reconsider.

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing our paper and for your helpful comments. I have made key revisions to the paper based on your feedback. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has good potential;  There are some basic English language errors and oversights in terms of definitions and sources that need to be included in the Literature Review addressed. Once these sources are reviewed and integrated into the work, the argument and themes will become much clearer and the contribution of the article clearer.

A second criticism relates to English language. This paper needs a thorough revision of English. Such revision will assist with some of the clarity issues identified above. 

The overall point of this study is unclear. I believe the author is attempting to argue that the financial value of a retailer’s name—the ‘goodwill’ value of the name—will increase or at least be correlated to CSR implementation (or perhaps marketing—I do not know which). This lack of clarity results from poor defined concepts. I have set these out below with suggestions.

The use of the word ‘equity’ is unhelpful. Does the author mean the financial value of shares in the company? Or, does the author mean ‘equity’ of the fairness among suppliers, employees and customers? Or, does the author mean financial value of the retailer, or its different brands?

“Only a small number of studies provide insight into how consumers perceive and respond to CSR activities.” This statement is incorrect. There is a vast literature on the topic. Perhaps start with Devinney, The myth of the ethical consumer and Vogel, The market for virtue. There is a place for CSR in retail, but not as presented in this paper.

“CSR activities of retailers, which are part of the sustainable marketing.” This is a very odd statement. CSR must be an integral part of organisational policy, not a part of marketing—i.e. greenwash. In fact, the author needs to consider the definition of CSR being used. Is it a policy? Or, a marketing tool? How does retailer activity in CSR connect to the proper definition of CSR as international business law? The author should look at Radhari et al, “Exploring global retailers' corporate social responsibility performance” Heliyon. 6, 8, p. 1-13. Additionally, the author should use the proper definition in Sheehy, “Defining CSR: Problems and Solutions” J Business Ethics and connect retailers as trying to implement and comply with international standards. The 2006 definition used “CSR can be defined as an organization's ethical behavior and social obligations beyond the organization's financial interests” is outdated.

Understanding retailers’ strategy or purpose in engaging in CSR needs to be reconsidered in relation to the above references.

These particular changes will help get the rest of the paper in order.

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing our paper and for your helpful comments. I have made key revisions to the paper based on your feedback.

Reviewer Comment:

The overall point of this study is unclear. I believe the author is attempting to argue that the financial value of a retailer’s name—the ‘goodwill’ value of the name—will increase or at least be correlated to CSR implementation (or perhaps marketing—I do not know which). This lack of clarity results from poor defined concepts. I have set these out below with suggestions.

Response:

Thank you for your time reviewing our paper and for your helpful comments. I have made key revisions to the paper based on your feedback. Each change is detailed below.

Comment 1:

The use of the word ‘equity’ is unhelpful. Does the author mean the financial value of shares in the company? Or, does the author mean ‘equity’ of the fairness among suppliers, employees and customers? Or, does the author mean financial value of the retailer, or its different brands?

Response:

Thank you for your time reviewing our paper and for your helpful comments. I have made key revisions to the paper based on your feedback. Based on your advice, I have clearly added explanations with retailer equity definition in introduction part as follows.

“The concept of retailer equity refers to a value associated by the consumer when they encounter the retailer's name and symbol such as the customer-based band equity (Arnett et al., 2003; Pappu and Quester, 2006). Therefore, it has defined retailer assets based on customer or marketing perspectives rather than on the concept of financial assets (Hartman and Spiro, 2005).”

Comment 2:

“Only a small number of studies provide insight into how consumers perceive and respond to CSR activities.” This statement is incorrect. There is a vast literature on the topic. Perhaps start with Devinney, The myth of the ethical consumer and Vogel, The market for virtue. There is a place for CSR in retail, but not as presented in this paper.

Response:

: Thank you for your comments. I agree with you that the sentence you pointed out can be a hasty generalization and a controversial issue, although it is based on previous research. I deleted the sentence based on your point.

Comment 3:

“CSR activities of retailers, which are part of the sustainable marketing.” This is a very odd statement. CSR must be an integral part of organisational policy, not a part of marketing—i.e. greenwash. In fact, the author needs to consider the definition of CSR being used. Is it a policy? Or, a marketing tool? How does retailer activity in CSR connect to the proper definition of CSR as international business law? The author should look at Radhari et al, “Exploring global retailers' corporate social responsibility performance” Heliyon. 6, 8, p. 1-13. Additionally, the author should use the proper definition in Sheehy, “Defining CSR: Problems and Solutions” J Business Ethics and connect retailers as trying to implement and comply with international standards. The 2006 definition used “CSR can be defined as an organization's ethical behavior and social obligations beyond the organization's financial interests” is outdated.

Response:

: Thank you for your time reviewing our paper and for your helpful comments and references. I just approached from the perspective that CSR activities could be used as a differentiated marketing tool. But I agree that CSR is bigger and higher-level concept beyond marketing activities. So, I deleted the sentence which you pointed out.

Comment 4:

This paper needs a thorough revision of English. Such revision will assist with some of the clarity issues identified above.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. I checked and corrected it through an English proofreader.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am disappointed to review this paper and see very little change. The paper is still not at a publishable point. The comments from the first round of reviews have been dealt with hastily or ignored. The English has not been sufficiently improved and is inadequate for publication in a Q2 journal.

The topic of the paper remains unclear. It should begin with a statement such as the author’s sentence on the top of page 3:

“CSR activities have a positive effect on strengthening the brand. Mark-Herbert and Von Schantz found that CSR activities result in a key component of creating a strong brand when delivered effectively. In addition, a company’s marketing and CSR activities create a synergy in brand enhancement.”

The current introduction is very weak and English remains at an unacceptable level. See my comments in [square brackets] “Today [No, this is not only recent phenomenon] as [‘the’ is missing—English language problem] market becoming globalized and competitive [it has long been globalized and competitive], retailers are focusing their efforts on finding ways to differentiate from their competitors [finding ways to compete: the whole field of business strategy stems from the 1980’s]. Traditionally, price has been a major strategy of retailers [as well as wholesalers] , however price competitiveness alone has now made it difficult for retailers to differentiate themselves because it is easy to imitate from competitors [but you argued that it was a result of competitive pressures from globalization] and the difference in price image of competitors [what does ‘price image’ mean?] continues to decrease [1]. Under these situations, retailers can fine [you mean ‘find’?] the [should be ‘a way’] way to differentiate from [should be ‘by’] corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The author has not placed the research through a properly conducted literature review and ignored the recommended citations which would have put it on the right track. I wrote: “Only a small number of studies provide insight into how consumers perceive and respond to CSR activities.” This statement is incorrect. There is a vast literature on the topic. Perhaps start with Devinney, The myth of the ethical consumer and Vogel, The market for virtue. There is a place for CSR in retail, but not as presented in this paper.” Deleting a sentence does not solve the problem of inadequate literature review. It is the same with the use of the term CSR and the use of CSR in retail. References to Radhari and Sheehy provided but were ignored and sentences deleted to avoid addressing the foundational issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report