The Role of Ethical Marketing Issues in Consumer-Brand Relationship
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract
from the introduction it is not very clear:
what is the research question how the paper adds value to existing literature the ethical aspect should be stronger and better highlighted. Probably you would need to reorder the key words in the order of their importance for your paperIntroduction
The research gap is not strong enough. There are studies which have studied ethical aspects of marketing mix, but in different context, i.e. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2580074; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2902595
You need to also clarify in the introduction:
which is the research context where you try to prove your research question which is the research gap and how does the research gap translate into the research question how is the research question implemented throughout the article (lit review, methodology, findings if applicable) on what theory do you ground your paper, i.e. how does the paper advance existing knowledge / on what theory do you ground the paper. the last paragraph of the introduction should present the next sections of your paper. You could perhaps present them as they come out from the research question?Lit review
Now you have a title "ethical marketing". This "concept" should have been emphasized in the abstract / introduction, maybe also in the title and the key words. It should be very clear how you explain all the concepts and how do they relate to the problem under investigation = research question
You need to explain somewhere what is your research context, i.e. where you have implemented the empirical research and why you chose that particular country/industry.
Appendix A and B. From where have you taken this items? You should very carefully explain the tables and if possible give references for all items (operationalization of constructs). You should explain here how the instrument you are using was operationalized.
From an other perspective the research methodology should also contain the tests you perform on the data for validity, reliability and internal consistency. If data is correct, than you can implement the further analysis.
It would also be proper to explain in the methodology how you have performed different analysis, how, and why are they important for your research, by also using proper references from the literature.
After making the analysis it would be proper to have those discussions that you now took in the conclusions. Discussions would actually mean that you compare your findings with previous/other findings from the literature. It is however proper to try to cite as many other studies as possible and highlight how your results confirm / differ from previous results.
Than the last section should be shorter. Conclusions should always be written on 4 sections:
theoretical implications - what are the contributions of your paper to the international literature, i.e. on what theory have you grounded the research and how have you extended the literature. managerial implications - what should managers learn from your study limitations future research perspectivesActually discussions could be larger, but conclusions should NEVER be as long as you have them now!
Otherwise the paper is interesting and has a very good potential, but you need to work harder / more on the structure of your paper.
Author Response
Issue Number: SUSTAINABILITY-509205
Thank you to the reviewers for their insightful comments in improving this paper and further highlighting the importance of this avenue of research. Each point made by each reviewer has been addressed and a response is outlined below. The revised part is highlighted with red color.
Major comments and suggestions:
In comment 1, reviewer suggest that author check self-plagiarism such as citation, cited references. Response: In response to this comment, author check the paper as well as the author corrected sentences with questionable plagiarism. And author make sure that the quotes and citations are correct. In comment 1, reviewer suggest that author revise the title, abstract, and the introduction for the study’s main framework. Response: In response to this comment, first, author revise the title and abstract and enriched introduction in reviewing the objective of this study. In comment 2, reviewer ask the author to develop method and data analysis Response: In response to this comment, we developed or enriched the method section such as the measurement tools used in this study as well as crosscheck the data analysis. In comment 3, reviewer ask the author to revise the discussion, implication and limitation. Thank you for your wonderful comments, which guided my work in revising the paper. Response: In response to this comment, we revised the discussion, implication, and Limitations and Future Research Direction section from pages 15 to 18. Particularly, theoretical and data analysis issues are described in the Limitation section for further study.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been written with the reviewers' suggestions.It will be a good addition to the Journal.
Author Response
Thank you so much and for your wondeful comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
"The objective of this study is to 59
explore the components of marketing mix from ethical "
It is the scope and not the objective. The research question or the scope of the article is to ...
The research gap is not sustained with proper references.
What is the theory where the authors add value and extent the knowledge?
It is not explained how the research question is transposed into the different sections of the paper.
The last paragraph of the introduction should end with a brief presentation of the sections of your paper.
Discussions are not strong enough. More comparisons of your results to previous findings in the literature should be highlighted.
Author Response
Issue Number: SUSTAINABILITY-509205
Thank you to reviewer for wonderful comments. The revised part is highlighted with red color.
Major comments and suggestions:
In comment 1, reviewer suggest that author revise clearly the title, abstract, and the introduction for the study’s main framework again. Response: In response to this comment, first, author revise the title, abstract and introduction in reviewing the objective or scope of this study based on reviewer’s suggestions. In comment 2, reviewer ask the author to enrich the discussion section Thank you for your wonderful comments, which guided my work in revising the paper. Response: In response to this comment, we developed or enriched the discussion section in reviewing the findings as well as comparing previous research works. In response to this comment, we revised the discussion, implication, and Limitations and Future Research Direction section. Author mentioned that some issues, which did not cover in this study, were described in the Limitation section for further study.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper offers a potential contribution since it states how ethics applied to marketing-mix variables may have an effect on relationship quality and brand loyalty. However, the manuscript suffers from serious deficiencies, arguing against publication in its present form in this journal. In its current stage, the paper needs a new theoretical model to be a useful research for readers and a better construction of the scales.
The author(s) should pay attention to these issues:
The rationale is not well stated. Following Parasuraman (2003) “A theoretical rationale or basis must exist to underlie the selection of constructs, for inclusion in a conceptual framework. An existing theory or integration of theories need not be part of this underlying theoretical rationale or basis. (…) Prior research will likely play a role as part of the rationale. (…) Theoretical arguments must have adequate detail. They must be convincing and well-argued”.
The author(s) must improve the literature section, developing better their objectives linked to a theoretical framework. They could include some research questions that help to understand the main proposals. Now the hypotheses are formulated without too much connection to the literature and the scales developed for each construct. Therefore, there is a need to link each hypotheses with references to the literature that have supported them or if they are new assumptions is better to make a proposition.
One of the main weakness of the paper is the selection and explanation of the mediator construct. I will comment the nature of the scale used for the authors related to this construct later. Relating to its theoretical nature, consumer-brand relationship has been approached in the branding literature following different perspectives. Although the authors quote some of the references, the review is outdated. I suggest to review and include this references:
· Papista, E., & Dimitriadis, S. (2012). Exploring consumer-brand relationship quality and identification: Qualitative evidence from cosmetics brands. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 15(1), 33–56. http://doi.org/10.1108/13522751211191982
· Grisaffe, D. B., & Nguyen, H. P. (2011). Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1052–1059. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.002
· Park, C. W., & MacInnis, D. J. (2018). Introduction to the Special Issue: Brand Relationships, Emotions, and the Self. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3(2), 123–129. http://doi.org/10.1086/696969
· Thomson, M., Macinnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The Ties That Bind : Measuring the Strength of Consumers ’ Emotional Attachments to Brands, 15(1), 77–91. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10
Moreover, relating the theoretical approach, I miss a dimension that must be included between marketing-mix practices and consumer-brand relationship. There is not any construct that alludes consumer attitude formation. This dimension is a clear antecedent of both constructs and need to be included in the model. If not, at least there must be a dimension that relates to consumer perceived ethicality. I include references that can help to formulate a new model to include these dimensions:
· Amofa, F., Rachel, Y., Petrovici, D., & Fearne, A. (2016). Towards a Framework for Understanding Fairtrade Purchase Intention in the Mainstream Environment of Supermarkets. Journal of Business Ethics, 181–197. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2509-9
· Brunk, K. H. (2010). Exploring origins of ethical company / brand perceptions — A consumer perspective of corporate ethics. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 255–262. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.011
· Brunk, K. H. (2012). Un / ethical Company and Brand Perceptions : Conceptualising and Operationalising Consumer Meanings, 551–565. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1339-x
· Brunk, K. H., & Blümelhuber, C. (2011). One strike and you ’ re out : Qualitative insights into the formation of consumers ’ ethical company or brand perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 134–141. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.02.009
· Pelsmacker, P. De. (2007). A Model for Fair Trade Buying Behaviour : The Role of Perceived Quantity and Quality of Information and of Product-specific Attitudes, 361–380. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9259-2
· Pelsmacker, P. De, Janssens, W., & Sterckx, E. (2006). Fair-trade beliefs , attitudes and buying behaviour of Belgian consumers, 138(May), 125–138. http://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.47
Regarding the scales, the authors include many items related to the companies’ strategies or actions that I think the regular consumer is not able to understand or at least they are not able to value. They use technical words that a corporate client can understand but I am no sure the usual consumer is able to answer them. For instance:
· Does it refrain from imitating inventions or trademarks of other companies without permission?
· Does it refrain from intentionally shortening shelf life of products?
· Does it refrain from using a predatory pricing strategy of intentionally lowering prices to eradicate competitors?
· Does it refrain from engaging in price collusion with competitors?
These are just a few examples. There are more technical questions in the questionnaire.
Moreover, the items and the scales must be related to the references in the literature that validated the scale. The authors show in the appendix the survey measures but they do not relate them to any concrete reference. The reader must be able to understand if the scale has been built by the authors or validated previously in the literature, both in the main text and in the appendix.
Regarding to consumer-brand construct, there are 15 items that the authors say they have extracted from the literature. They mention they have complemented this scale. I think here there is another weakness of the study. By reading the items, I think that there different dimensions included: image, positioning, WOM recommendations, communications. Are the authors sure that this is a single construct? Have they tested the dimensionality? The EFA results seem to have only one factor for CBR but I suspect that there are more factors/dimensions involved. Could they provide the whole matrix instead the factor loadings?
To sum up, I do not consider this paper to be a publishable piece of work in its current state. Although the purpose of the paper is mentioned, the conceptual framework is not clearly stated. In addition, I recommend the authors to connect past research with the specific research questions. Although, they have established the relationships in the literature in a disconnected manner, they should reflect about the order of the arguments, the different relationships among variables and the authors that stated them. The authors(s) must improve the theoretical model clearly stating the relationships among constructs and including other construct related to attitude formation. Moreover, they also need to improve the analyses. I recommend them to use a more conclusive method that tests the dimensionality of CB relationship.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Effects of Marketing Ethics on the Consumer-2
Brand Relationship? Perspective of Sustainable 3
Development
LINEs 13-14: product, price, place, promotion are marketing instruments. Why do you call them marketing ethics?
If it is „customer based“ than it is always perceived by customers, so it is no need to repeat the same words!
17-20 what kind of company? Is the sample representative? I guess only for the investigated company. How can the results be generalised?
What is “CBRQ and PPQ”? Please explain the abbreviations!
This article needs very serious proofread, as it is not clear what the authors want to say. Some words and expressions are redundant.
The abstract should very clear delimitate the research question. It is not clear what the authors want to say and how the paper adds knowledge to the literature. Furthermore, it is not clear for whom the paper is important. Is it just another research? Where is the originality? What aspects have not been investigated before?
Introduction
37: “positive behavior” what is positive behaviour? Positive regarding what? Please be more accurate!
“context of social and environmental concerns” from whose perspective do you mean concerns?
45: what complexity? Please explain!
47-48: if it is growing, then it is not emerging. Emerging would mean that it just has begun, growing means that it emerged some longer time ago.
How is ethical marketing linked to consumer power? Please explain!
51-53: please explain how managers are able to play a more active role in increasing the sustainability of their business.
The introduction should contain the theory which the paper uses – relies on in order to add knowledge to the literature. It should explain how this is transposed to the research question and how the research question is linked to the literature review, the methodology and the empirical results that are obtained.
The introduction should end with a description of the sections of the article.
Lit review
“implementation of its ethical role” where? Internally? Externally? In the local community where a company acts? Within the target segments of the company?
80-81: It is not clear what you mean! Please revise!
What is the difference between corporate ethics and marketing ethics? What is the difference between them and moral believes? Please explain!
“Marketing ethics pertains to both 83
individual factors and circumstantial factors.” This is not clear. Marketing ethics is done – implemented by the company. However, the factors that you analyse refer to customers. The relationship between them is not properly explained!
90-91: so only when dealing with customers a company should act ethically? Developing own products should not be ethically???
“moral conflict when they try to balance corporate needs against 95
consumer demand.” From where do you know that? What kind of moral conflicts? Why? Please be more accurate!
“or, as it is often called, opportunism” so marketing managers are opportunists? That is interesting! You need to further explain these with proper arguments and references!
98-99: so marketing managers are unethically in their behaviour? Now this is awesome!
“Some scholars define” some? Which? Multiple references should be cited not just one!
“(Murphy et al., 2007).” References should be inserted as numbers between brackets
110: this area? Which area?
„….healthy 110 business transaction”???? healthy only refers to individuals! Otherwise it should be „healthy”
„Price-related ethics include the proporti on principle and the fairness 111 principle.” Reference to that???
Luxury goods … vital benefit. This is your opinion or is it from a reference? If it is your opinion than you need to bring some more arguments!
119-127: references?
“produce collaboration continuity” what kind of collaboration? Please be more accurate!
“intimate relationships” ??? this is interesting! How intimate?
“financial exchange” really? So the brands pays the consumer to be loyal?
“functional quality of products is” this is only one aspect of the product quality. How about the rest?
“Recent studies of loyalty have used a behavioral inde” which ones? Please cite!
“in situations in which they must make unethical but legal decisions” please be more accurate and explain!
“in gray areas” what are those? Please explain!
H1; H2? Why a positive effect? From where do you know that the effect will be positive? You should assume that they will have an effect (significant), later on you will prove statistically that it is either a positive or a negative one!
Why have you only referred to the classical 4Ps? Why have you not taken into consideration the 7Ps from service marketing?
H5 The company’s marketing ethics strategy or action will have …
It is not clear in which context you refer to marketing ethics. It should be very clearly stated from the beginning that you refer to a specific context. Which is the research context?
Before you test a questionnaire, you should develop it by means of operationalization of the constructs.
Pretested should not be done with students but more likely with experts in the field!
“The measurement tools” the questionnaire is an instrument = tool
Why did you choose convenience sampling?
If it is a panel of 1200 consumers … than it is not convenience sampling! It is panel! Why did you choose panel?
“had not marked questions” what are marked questions?
“a significant number of missing values were excluded” what is a significant number? 10? 15? 25? 50?
Individuals with exactly 2000 USD … in which of the 2 groups where they included?
“operational definitions of the variables”???? What is that???
“extracted survey questions from previous studies”?????
“to fit this 320 study.” In what regard where they altered? Please be more accurate!
Where is the operationalization of items? Where is the reliability and validity check of data?
347.355: please give some references for conducting the study in this way! Reliability and validity should have been checked before EFA!
Discussion are weak. Authors should have relied on several studies to make their comparisons with previous findings from the literature. It is awkward that almost all hypothesis are accepted.
Conclusions: where are the theoretical implications? Please bring more arguments.
The paper is weak and the overall contribution to the literature is very limited.
