The Influence of Chinese Professional Basketball Organizations’ (CPBOs’) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Efforts on Their Clubs’ Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors address an interesting topic within a local context. The findings are well discussed. Overall the manuscript is of high quality and adds value in the extant body of knowlegde. Therefore, I gladly recommend publication.

Some suggestions for improvement:

The questions (that are mentioned in a separate file attached for reviewers) should be included in the article (e.g. listed in table form) to allow repeatability.

"Bartlett's test of Spharicity’s" in Subsection 3.2 should be replaced by "Bartlett's test of Sphericity’s".

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

The paper is well written and has a relevant purpose. However, there are some major concerns.

- It was not mentioned whether the size of the reached sample was enough to test the model.

- Non-response bias and common method bias were not assessed, which can seriously threaten your results.

- How do you justify that the research model does not fit with the results? Was the research model and questionnaire properly built on previously validated scales?

- Due to the lack of validity of the structural model, the discussion of the findings was not deep enough, hindering the contributions of the paper. Overall, the paper lacks discussion with the literature, despite the good review presented.

I hope these comments help in the continuity of the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presented has a good structure and development. The title and abstract correctly explain what the reader will encounter in the research. In general, there is an issue that misleads the reader, the mention of the construct of engagement and then does not appear is related reflected.  Engagement is a deeply studied construct in the area of social sciences, so it should have a greater presence if it is mentioned. Otherwise, a substitute term should be sought so as not to generate confusion.

The article should be reviewed with regard to issues of format and referencing, it does not follow the rules of the journal in some parts. References are not in the journal format.

The introduction is adequate and delves into theoretical aspects relevant to the research.

The methodology is poorly developed, missing, for example, a section that talks about the sample and its representativeness. Likewise, the rest of the methodological sections should be expanded to clarify the methodological process. In addition, the objectives of the research are not stated.

The results are adequately presented. However, in the same section it is pointed out that they are discussed, but there is no in-depth discussion between the theoretical framework of reference and the results found. Therefore, the article lacks discussion.

The conclusion is adequate, although it remains to be noted the degree of compliance with the objectives or research questions posed by the researchers.

Finally, the authors begin by mentioning the issue of sustainable development, but it is not mentioned again throughout the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Examining the CSR effectiveness in an emerging sport market is meaningful and innovative. The paper is overall well-written and rigorously performed. 

One suggestion for authors to consider: given the cross-sectional nature of this study, it ambiguous to tell whether team id was formed before CSR or vice versa. Generally, it's likely to the former one. Authors could consider treating the team id as a binary (more categorical levels) moderating variable instead of mediating variable in the relationship model. In other words, you compare the behavior difference between high-identified fans and low-identified fans when exposing to CSR stimuli. Another compromised solution is to remove team id from the relationship model. Again, it's just a suggestion (not warranting a round of revision).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The revised paper presents major improvements over the previous version. The reviewers' suggestions have been addressed to a greater or lesser extent. I believe that in the present form it is suitable for publication.

Best regards,

Author Response

We agree that it is arbitrary to suppose directly the role of team identification as mediating variable. Following the releavant comment and advice, we have modified hypothesis to suppose team identification as moderating variable, and planned to verify it. Unfortunately, the weak relationship between CSR adn Business Sustainability turns the moderating role not verifiable. More over, we have shown in 4.2.3 of the new version that the product of CSR and team identification has even lower correlation coefficient with business sustainability than the direct correlation between team identification and club's sustainability.

In fact, in the new version, we emphasized in the conclusion that there are two levels of qualitative analysis in our study. The dsecriptive statistics methods evaluate fans' "superficial" expectations and willing. The relational analysis methods to evaluate CSR's enhancement effects on team identification and clubs' sustainable development. That is : "Does the importance attached to CSR is proportional to their CSR-related team identification and purchasing intentions?" Unfortunately, the relationship is very weak, and team identification can not play its moderaing role between these two non-proportional linked factors.