Review Reports - The Impact of NPO Credibility on Enterprise Brand Image in Cause-Related Marketing: A Study Based on the Mediating Effect of Perceived Corporate Hypocrisy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a well-structured and empirically sound investigation into a relevant topic within marketing and corporate social responsibility (CSR). This investigation demonstrates a strong theoretical foundation, drawing on the affect-transfer model and attribution theory to develop a comprehensive model that includes the mediating role of perceived corporate hypocrisy and the moderating effect of public emergencies like COVID-19. The use of three experimental studies followed by a single-paper meta-analysis is a significant methodological strength, providing a robust approach to testing the hypotheses and enhancing the reliability of the findings. The consistent demonstration that low NPO credibility negatively impacts enterprise brand image, mediated by corporate hypocrisy, and that this effect is attenuated during public emergencies, offers valuable theoretical and practical insights. The clear articulation of practical implications for companies engaging in cause-related marketing (CRM) further strengthens its contribution, advising on careful NPO selection and strategic timing of campaigns.

Despite its strengths, several key areas need improvement to elevate the quality and impact of the paper:

A primary limitation is the exclusive reliance on undergraduate students from a major university in China as participants across all experiments. While the authors acknowledge this, stating that factors like age and occupation can influence CRM effectiveness and suggesting broader demographics for future research, this homogeneity significantly restricts the external validity of the findings. Top investigations should demonstrate broader applicability, either through diverse samples or cross-cultural validation. Future iterations should incorporate more varied participant pools to enhance generalizability.

The experimental context primarily uses textual descriptions to simulate CRM campaigns. In the age of online CRM, which heavily relies on multimedia elements (images, videos), this design might not fully capture the complexity and nuances of real-world consumer perceptions. While the authors varied product types and charity campaigns to enhance robustness, incorporating more realistic stimuli, such as visual and auditory cues, would significantly improve the ecological validity and make the findings more compelling.

While the theoretical framework is well-applied, a deeper, more nuanced discussion of the theoretical implications could be beneficial. For instance, further elaboration on how the findings specifically advance the affect-transfer model or attribution theory beyond their current applications in CRM would add more theoretical weight. Exploring alternative theoretical lenses or boundary conditions in greater depth could also enrich the paper.

The paper makes a solid contribution by integrating perceived corporate hypocrisy and public emergency as a moderator. However, the authors might need to further emphasize the unique theoretical mechanisms or practical implications that distinguish this work from existing literature. Highlighting how this study resolves prior inconsistencies or opens entirely new avenues for research would be valuable.

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper presents a well-structured and empirically sound investigation into a relevant topic within marketing and corporate social responsibility (CSR). This investigation demonstrates a strong theoretical foundation, drawing on the affect-transfer model and attribution theory to develop a comprehensive model that includes the mediating role of perceived corporate hypocrisy and the moderating effect of public emergencies like COVID-19. The use of three experimental studies followed by a single-paper meta-analysis is a significant methodological strength, providing a robust approach to testing the hypotheses and enhancing the reliability of the findings. The consistent demonstration that low NPO credibility negatively impacts enterprise brand image, mediated by corporate hypocrisy, and that this effect is attenuated during public emergencies, offers valuable theoretical and practical insights. The clear articulation of practical implications for companies engaging in cause-related marketing (CRM) further strengthens its contribution, advising on careful NPO selection and strategic timing of campaigns.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate Reviewer 1’s affirmation of our paper’s research, methodology, theory, and practical worth.

Comments 2: Despite its strengths, several key areas need improvement to elevate the quality and impact of the paper:

Response 2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful observation regarding the limited sample homogeneity in our initial experiments. To bolster the external validity and generalizability of our research findings, we have implemented a substantial revision by undertaking a new online experiment (i.e., Experiment 2).

In Experiment 2, we recruited 220 participants through the data marketplace of Credamo in China. To safeguard the quality of our sample, we integrated attention-check questions. The participants were diversified, encompassing not just students but also government employees, corporate staff, self-employed individuals, and others. The change can be found on page seven.

Comments 3: The experimental context primarily uses textual descriptions to simulate CRM campaigns. In the age of online CRM, which heavily relies on multimedia elements (images, videos), this design might not fully capture the complexity and nuances of real-world consumer perceptions. While the authors varied product types and charity campaigns to enhance robustness, incorporating more realistic stimuli, such as visual and auditory cues, would significantly improve the ecological validity and make the findings more compelling.

Response 3: Thanks for pointing this out. We’d like to make it clear that all our experimental scenarios were systematically developed to simulate genuine CRM campaigns conducted on leading e-commerce platforms (e.g., Gongyi Baobei Campaign). Currently, in CRM campaigns, the introduction of NPOs is mainly in textual format, with only a scarce number of accompanying images. Considering this real-world situation, our experimental design, which primarily relies on textual descriptions, closely mirrors actual practice. As a result, we are confident that our research findings are highly convincing and boast strong ecological validity.

Comments 4: While the theoretical framework is well-applied, a deeper, more nuanced discussion of the theoretical implications could be beneficial. For instance, further elaboration on how the findings specifically advance the affect-transfer model or attribution theory beyond their current applications in CRM would add more theoretical weight. Exploring alternative theoretical lenses or boundary conditions in greater depth could also enrich the paper.

Response 4: Thanks and we recognize that the theoretical implications section of our paper required a more comprehensive discussion of the contributions to the affect-transfer model and attribution theory. In response, we have expanded this section to complement our articulation of the study’s contributions to the CRM literature. Specifically, we elaborated on the applicability and theoretical value of both the affect-transfer model and attribution theory in the context of cause-related marketing, highlighting how they provide new perspectives for explaining consumer responses to corporate brand image. Furthermore, we outlined how our findings can offer theoretical insights that may inspire future research to further extend these two frameworks. The change can be found on page eleven.

Comments 5: The paper makes a solid contribution by integrating perceived corporate hypocrisy and public emergency as a moderator. However, the authors might need to further emphasize the unique theoretical mechanisms or practical implications that distinguish this work from existing literature. Highlighting how this study resolves prior inconsistencies or opens entirely new avenues for research would be valuable.

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. In response, we have revised both the introduction and theoretical implication sections to better highlight the distinctiveness and value of our study. Specifically, we systematically reviewed the existing literature, summarized its limitations, and clarified how our research advances current understanding. For example, in the theoretical contribution section, we emphasized that prior CRM studies have predominantly focused on its positive outcomes, with limited attention to potential negative effects and underlying mechanisms. Addressing this gap, our study demonstrates that partnerships with low-credibility NPOs can negatively impact corporate brand image, with perceived corporate hypocrisy serving as a critical mediating mechanism. These insights not only resolve prior inconsistencies but also open new avenues for advancing CRM research. The change can be found on page two and page eleven.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report for The Impact of NPO Credibility on Enterprise Brand Image in Cause-Related Marketing: A Study Based on the Mediating Effect of Perceived Corporate Hypocrisy

Introduction

The introduction is generally well-written and informative, but it could benefit from a more focused structure. The opening paragraphs spend considerable time discussing the popularity of cause-related marketing (CRM) in China, particularly referencing Taobao’s campaign, which, while illustrative, may limit the paper’s relevance to international audiences. The transition from general CRM practices to the specific issue of nonprofit organization (NPO) credibility is somewhat abrupt and could be more smoothly integrated. Moreover, although the authors mention inconsistencies in prior research, they do not clearly articulate the specific gap their study aims to fill. A more explicit statement of the research gap and how this study uniquely contributes to the literature would strengthen the introduction considerably.

Literature review

The review is comprehensive and well-cited.

It successfully combines summary and synthesis, especially in linking NPO credibility to brand image via perceived hypocrisy.

Consider explicitly labeling the section as “Literature Review” for clarity, even if integrated with theory.

Methodology

The methodology section is detailed and includes information on participant demographics, experimental manipulations, and measurement instruments. However, the exclusive use of university students as participants raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings. The authors acknowledge this limitation, but it remains a significant issue, especially given the consumer-focused nature of the research. Moreover, the use of fictional brands and NPOs, while useful for controlling bias, may reduce the ecological validity of the study. Real-world brands and organizations could evoke stronger and more authentic responses from participants. The stimuli used in the experiments are also limited to only two product types, which may not capture the full range of consumer reactions across different industries.

Results and discussion

The results are presented clearly and supported by appropriate statistical analyses, including ANOVA, MANOVA, and bootstrapping techniques. However, the interpretation of effect sizes and confidence intervals is somewhat superficial. The authors report statistical significance but do not discuss the practical significance of their findings, which is crucial for understanding the real-world impact of NPO credibility on brand image. Additionally, while figures are included to illustrate key results, they are not well-integrated into the text and lack descriptive captions that would aid interpretation. A summary table of key findings across the three experiments would enhance clarity and allow for easier comparison.

The discussion section reiterates the main findings and connects them to the theoretical framework, but it tends to restate results rather than delve into deeper interpretation. There is limited exploration of alternative explanations for the observed effects, such as consumer skepticism or prior brand familiarity, which could also influence perceptions of corporate hypocrisy. The discussion also lacks a cross-cultural perspective, despite the study’s focus on Chinese consumers. Given that perceptions of hypocrisy and trust in NPOs may vary significantly across cultures, this omission limits the broader applicability of the findings.

Conclusion

It misses an opportunity to highlight the theoretical contributions of the study more explicitly. Furthermore, the suggestions for future research are vague and lack specificity. For instance, the authors mention the need for field experiments and broader participant samples but do not elaborate on how these studies should be designed or what specific questions they should address.

Author Response

Comments 1: Introduction

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. In response, we made the following revisions: First, regarding the research background, we reduced excessive discussion of Chinese cases and incorporated CRM cases and data from different countries to enhance the international relevance and value of our study. Second, to address the abrupt transition from CRM practices to NPO credibility, we revised our writing to provide a smoother introduction to the research focus. Specifically, we emphasized that NPOs are essential partners in corporate CRM campaigns and that their credibility is widely recognized as a critical determinant of CRM success. Thus, our study investigates how NPO credibility in CRM collaborations affects corporate brand image. Third, in relation to the unclear articulation of the research gap, we reorganized the literature review, explicitly identified the gaps in prior studies, and highlighted how our research addresses these gaps to strengthen the contribution of the study. The change can be found on page one and page two.

Comments 2: Literature review

The review is comprehensive and well-cited.

It successfully combines summary and synthesis, especially in linking NPO credibility to brand image via perceived hypocrisy.

Consider explicitly labeling the section as “Literature Review” for clarity, even if integrated with theory.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have renamed the section from “Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses” to “Literature Review and Research Hypotheses” to enhance clarity and consistency. The change can be found on page three.

Comments 3: Methodology

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Following your suggestion, we conducted a new online experiment (i.e., Experiment 2). This experiment aimed to examine the impact of NPO credibility on corporate brand image, as well as the mediating effect of perceived corporate hypocrisy. Participants were recruited through the dataset marketplace of the Credamo platform in China. Besides students, the sample also included government employees, corporate staff, self-employed individuals, and others, thus improving the external validity and generalizability of our research findings. The change can be found on page seven.

In our three experiments, the use of fictional brands and NPOs was intended to eliminate the interference of consumers’ existing attitudes towards real brands on the research results and to avoid potential infringement issues. Nevertheless, the experimental materials were designed by drawing inspiration from genuine cause-related marketing campaigns on e-commerce platforms (e.g., Gongyi Baobei Campaign), ensuring a certain level of authenticity perception.

Moreover, the stimuli used in the experiments were best-selling products on e-commerce platforms that were closely relevant to the participants (i.e., notebook and water purifier). This choice guaranteed that participants were relatively familiar with the products and had a strong intention to purchase them.

Comments 4: Results and discussion

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments. In the empirical study section, we have not only incorporated some significant research findings (e.g., η²_p values) but also conducted a more in-depth analysis of the results. We revised the captions of all figures to enhance their integration with the text. Additionally, we added a new figure (Figure 1) to illustrate the mediating effect of perceived corporate hypocrisy on the relationship between NPO credibility and enterprise brand image. Meanwhile, a new table (Table 3) has been introduced to summarize the key findings from the three experiments, facilitating easier comparison and enhancing the overall clarity of the research. The change can be found on page seven and page nine.

We further revised and refined the discussion section. Specifically, in addition to presenting our findings, we conducted a comparative analysis with prior studies to highlight the differences and connections between our results and existing research. This approach allowed us to provide a deeper theoretical interpretation of the findings and underscore the novel contributions of our study, thereby moving beyond a mere restatement of the results. The change can be found on page ten and page eleven.

In the empirical research, we acknowledge that we did not consider other alternative mediating mechanisms. However, we did control for several important variables, including participants’ participation experience in relevant charity campaigns and the perceived importance of the donation. Regarding the lack of a cross-cultural perspective in this study, we have provided a corresponding discussion in the section on research limitations. We recognize that perceived corporate hypocrisy and trust in non-profit organizations (NPOs) can vary significantly across different cultures, and the absence of a cross-cultural analysis may limit the broader applicability of our findings. By addressing this in the limitations, we aim to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the study’s scope and encourage future research to explore cross-cultural dimensions. The change can be found on page twelve.

Comments 5: Conclusion

Response 5: Thanks and we acknowledge that our discussion of the theoretical contributions was not sufficiently explicit. In response, we have revised the theoretical implications section by reviewing the existing literature and identifying its limitations. Building on this foundation, we highlighted the distinctiveness and unique value of our study compared with prior research, and we concluded with a clearer articulation of the theoretical insights our findings offer for future research. Additionally, within the “Limitation and Future Research” section, we’ve refined our suggestions for subsequent studies to be more precise and focused. The change can be found on page eleven and page twelve.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concept of a public emergency as a moderator is intriguing, but it would strengthen the argument to briefly explain why such a context weakens the perceived hypocrisy effect (e.g., are consumers more forgiving during crises?).The moderation by public emergency (e.g., COVID-19) is a potentially interesting idea, but it is vaguely explained. The abstract does not provide a theoretical rationale for why consumer sensitivity to hypocrisy would decrease during a crisis. This weakens the logic of the moderation effect
It may be useful to briefly note the limitations or boundaries of the findings (e.g., are the results generalizable beyond the COVID-19 context or specific types of NPOs?).
The use of the affect-transfer model and attribution theory appears superficial and underdeveloped. The article fails to clearly explain how these theories work together to form a cohesive framework. Specifically, the mechanisms through which affect is transferred from a nonprofit organization to a brand, and how this relates to attributions of hypocrisy, need more theoretical elaboration.
There is a lack of discussion of alternative explanations or competing theories, which weakens the theoretical rigor of the model.
The concept of NPO credibility is introduced as central, yet it is not clearly defined or contextualized. Is credibility based on perceived integrity, transparency, effectiveness, or public recognition? The lack of definitional clarity makes it difficult to assess the robustness of the proposed relationships.
Similarly, perceived corporate hypocrisy is used as a mediator without sufficient explanation of how it is conceptualized and measured. The causal logic between low credibility and perceived hypocrisy is asserted but not convincingly justified.
The model assumes a direct transfer of perceptions from NPO to the partnering company, yet no justification is provided for why consumers would hold the company accountable for the NPO’s reputation, especially in partnerships where the company may have limited control over the NPO.
By separating the discussion for H1 and H2, you will provide a more nuanced interpretation of each finding, better demonstrate your theoretical contributions, and offer targeted practical recommendations. same thing for H3 and H4.
Discussion is not valid; discuss the results of the study and the differences between this study and other studies.
Added a section for practical implications.

Author Response

Comments 1: The concept of a public emergency as a moderator is intriguing, but it would strengthen the argument to briefly explain why such a context weakens the perceived hypocrisy effect (e.g., are consumers more forgiving during crises?).The moderation by public emergency (e.g., COVID-19) is a potentially interesting idea, but it is vaguely explained. The abstract does not provide a theoretical rationale for why consumer sensitivity to hypocrisy would decrease during a crisis. This weakens the logic of the moderation effect.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comments, which are highly valuable for enhancing the theoretical rigor of our study. Following your advice, we have strengthened the theoretical rationale for incorporating public emergencies as a moderator. Specifically, we clarified the conceptualization of public emergencies and provided a more detailed analysis of how such contexts reshape consumers’ psychological perceptions and attribution processes in evaluating CRM activities. We further explained that during public emergencies, consumers are more likely to attribute corporate collaboration with low-credibility NPOs to situational constraints rather than opportunistic motives, thereby reducing their sensitivity to perceived corporate hypocrisy and weakening negative evaluations. The change can be found on page four and page five.

Comments 2: It may be useful to briefly note the limitations or boundaries of the findings (e.g., are the results generalizable beyond the COVID-19 context or specific types of NPOs?).

Response 2: Thanks for pointing this out. In the research limitations section, we have added a discussion on the generalizability of our findings, specifically addressing the applicability and potential boundaries of the results in other “public emergency” contexts as well as across different types of NPOs. The change can be found on page twelve.

Comments 3: The use of the affect-transfer model and attribution theory appears superficial and underdeveloped. The article fails to clearly explain how these theories work together to form a cohesive framework. Specifically, the mechanisms through which affect is transferred from a nonprofit organization to a brand, and how this relates to attributions of hypocrisy, need more theoretical elaboration.

There is a lack of discussion of alternative explanations or competing theories, which weakens the theoretical rigor of the model.

Response 3: Thanks. We acknowledge that our discussion of the affect-transfer model and attribution theory was insufficient, particularly in explaining how each theory individually supports the study’s hypotheses and framework. In response, we have revised the literature review and hypothesis development sections to provide a more systematic elaboration. Specifically, we further articulated the theoretical underpinnings of the affect-transfer model and its role in explaining how affect is transferred from nonprofits to corporate brands, while also clarifying the theoretical value of attribution theory in understanding the formation of consumers’ perceived corporate hypocrisy. This approach enhances the alignment of each theory with our research framework and strengthens the rigor of our theoretical reasoning. The change can be found on page three and page four.

Comments 4: The concept of NPO credibility is introduced as central, yet it is not clearly defined or contextualized. Is credibility based on perceived integrity, transparency, effectiveness, or public recognition? The lack of definitional clarity makes it difficult to assess the robustness of the proposed relationships.

Similarly, perceived corporate hypocrisy is used as a mediator without sufficient explanation of how it is conceptualized and measured. The causal logic between low credibility and perceived hypocrisy is asserted but not convincingly justified.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments. First, we have provided a rigorous definition of NPO credibility in the manuscript, clarifying the conceptual focus of our study. In addition, we have explicitly defined perceived corporate hypocrisy and further strengthened the theoretical justification for the hypothesized relationship between low NPO credibility and perceived corporate hypocrisy, thereby enhancing the plausibility and robustness of our research hypotheses. The change can be found on page three and page four.

Comments 5: The model assumes a direct transfer of perceptions from NPO to the partnering company, yet no justification is provided for why consumers would hold the company accountable for the NPO’s reputation, especially in partnerships where the company may have limited control over the NPO.

By separating the discussion for H1 and H2, you will provide a more nuanced interpretation of each finding, better demonstrate your theoretical contributions, and offer targeted practical recommendations. same thing for H3 and H4.

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments, which are crucial for enhancing the theoretical rigor of our hypotheses. Following your suggestions, we have separated the discussions for H1 and H2. For H1, we elaborated on the theoretical rationale, based on the affect-transfer model, explaining why consumers may hold companies accountable for the credibility of partnering NPOs. For H2, drawing on attribution theory, we further justified the mediating role of perceived corporate hypocrisy in the process through which NPO credibility affects the corporate brand image. Similarly, we have supplemented the discussion for H3 and H4 to enhance the scientific rigor of our hypotheses and provide more targeted practical implications. The change can be found on page three, page four, and page five.

Comments 6: Discussion is not valid; discuss the results of the study and the differences between this study and other studies.

Response 6: Thanks and we have further revised and enhanced the discussion section. In the updated version, we not only elaborate on the study’s findings but also provide a comparative analysis with existing literature, highlighting the differences between our results and prior studies, and emphasizing the novel insights and unique contributions of this research. The change can be found on page eleven.

Comments 7: Added a section for practical implications.

Response 7: Thanks and we have revised the practical implications section to more clearly highlight the real-world relevance and applicability of our findings. The change can be found on page eleven and page twelve.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your attention to the recommended modifications and enhancements. The paper has significantly elevated in both quality and uniformity

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good work