The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Trust and Loyalty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Simply calculating the correlation coefficient is not enough to show a cause-effect relationship. For this, more convincing research methods should be used, and the methodology used and the results obtained should be reflected in the article.

It must be scientifically justified that the number of participants in the survey is sufficient to generalize the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your valuable feedback! Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.

1) Simply calculating the correlation coefficient is not enough to show a cause-effect relationship. For this, more convincing research methods should be used, and the methodology used and the results obtained should be reflected in the article.
- Thank you for your feedback. We have added some further analysis of our findings in the "Results" section based on the Normal Distribution Test and the Predictive Ability Analysis of the dimensions of our study so that the cause-effect relationship is further highlighted.

2) It must be scientifically justified that the number of participants in the survey is sufficient to generalize the results.
- Thank you for your feedback. According to Creswell, a convenience sample -such as the one we have selected for our study- is not always desirable, especially in comparison with a sample picked through randomization. Although, the number of respondents is considered sufficient for first-level findings. We recognize as a limitation the convenience methodology and in future research, the use of a more extended sample would for sure provide us with more representative results.

Kind regards,
Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity of getting familiar with the study. The subject of this article fits into the thematic scope of the journal. The topics raised by the Authors are important and up-to-date ones. The content of the study strictly refers to the topic which has been specified in the title. The authors have indicated a research gap, and they are aware of the limitations of the conducted research and of the possibilities of their development.
The article is constructed well. However, in my opinion, it will be stronger if the following remarks are taken into consideration:
•    The research methodology will need to be supplemented. In the "Discussion" subsection, the authors mention two-dimensional analysis, correlations, and regression - without providing any details - this will need to be clarified.
•    The results regarding the two-dimensional analysis (presented in the "Discussion" subsection) should be included in section 3 – "Results". For greater clarity, it would be worth presenting the results in tabular form.
•    The authors write - "To reveal the main purpose of the paper, which is to investigate the level of correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility and customers’ trust and customers’ loyalty, respectively, our analysis has been based on 2 Hypotheses, which function as our Research Questions [...]"
The hypothesis and the research question are not identical concepts. I suggest focusing on the research questions.
•    As the Authors have indicated, the issues they have addresses are quite heavily explored, and thus, it is worth to supplement the literature review with newer items, especially ones from the last 5 years.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your valuable feedback! Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.

1) The subject of this article fits into the thematic scope of the journal. The topics raised by the Authors are important and up-to-date ones. The content of the study strictly refers to the topic which has been specified in the title. The authors have indicated a research gap, and they are aware of the limitations of the conducted research and of the possibilities of their development.
- Thank you for your kind words.

2) The research methodology will need to be supplemented. In the "Discussion" subsection, the authors mention two-dimensional analysis, correlations, and regression - without providing any details - this will need to be clarified.
- Thank you for your feedback. We have added some further analysis of our findings in the "Results" section based on the Normal Distribution Test and the Predictive Ability Analysis of the two dimensions of our study ("Trust" and "Loyalty") so that correlations and regression are further highlighted.

3) The results regarding the two-dimensional analysis (presented in the "Discussion" subsection) should be included in section 3 – "Results". For greater clarity, it would be worth presenting the results in tabular form.
- Thank you for your feedback. The results presented in the "Discussion" section have been added to the "Results" section in tabular form so that they are presented in clearer form. We considered it important to include them in the "Discussion" section as well, so that the implications of the study are better connected with the findings.

4) The authors write - "To reveal the main purpose of the paper, which is to investigate the level of correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility and customers’ trust and customers’ loyalty, respectively, our analysis has been based on 2 Hypotheses, which function as our Research Questions [...]"
The hypothesis and the research question are not identical concepts. I suggest focusing on the research questions.
- Thank you for your feedback. We have revised this part of our research's methodology and have focused on the research questions of our study.

5) As the Authors have indicated, the issues they have addresses are quite heavily explored, and thus, it is worth to supplement the literature review with newer items, especially ones from the last 5 years.
- Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the references used and we have replaced a few of them with more recent ones.

Kind regards,
Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The purpose of this article is to study the effect of CSR from the perspective of some mobile phone companies, in combination with the perspective of customers, regarding their trends in terms of their trust and loyalty. I have some observations:

1.  The authors use the term dissertation for the scientific work. We recommend replacing it with the term article, paper, research.
2.  The correlations between the variables are assumed by the authors through the use of SPSS, but the mentioned values ​​are not checked in the article. Maybe the SPSS output join would help verify the data.
3.  The sample used is totally unrepresentative (300) in the context where in Greece there are millions of subscribers for the three companies used in the study. Authors must reconsider their study.
4.  The defined hypotheses are not explained in order to highlight why the authors pursue the positive impact of trust and loyalty. Also, the validation of the hypotheses is done synthetically in the Conclusions section without logically substantiating the variables and correlations that were the basis of their validation.
5.  The authors declare a study carried out in November - December 2021, but the bibliographic sources are older than 2018. We recommend the identification of current bibliographic sources, relevant to the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your valuable feedback! Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.

1) The authors use the term dissertation for the scientific work. We recommend replacing it with the term article, paper, research.
- Thank you for your feedback. We have replaced the term "dissertation" with the term "research".

2) The correlations between the variables are assumed by the authors through the use of SPSS, but the mentioned values ​​are not checked in the article. Maybe the SPSS output join would help verify the data.
- Thank you for your feedback. We have added some further analysis of our findings in the "Results" section in tabular form based on the Normal Distribution Test and the Predictive Ability Analysis of the two dimensions of our study ("Trust" and "Loyalty") so that correlations and regression are further highlighted.

3) The sample used is totally unrepresentative (300) in the context where in Greece there are millions of subscribers for the three companies used in the study. Authors must reconsider their study.
- Thank you for your feedback. According to Creswell, a convenience sample -such as the one we have selected for our study- is not always desirable, especially in comparison with a sample picked through randomization. The number of subscribers of the three main mobile communication providers in Greece is in any case much larger than the number of respondents we have selected. Although, due to the COVID-19 limitations that we have already pointed out in the paper, combined with the fact that the research is not funded by any of the telecommunication companies so that we could have direct access to their customers' list, we have tried to provide a sufficient level of analysis so that the number of respondents is considered representative. We recognize as a limitation the convenience methodology used and in future research, the use of a more extended sample would for sure provide us with more representative results.

4) The defined hypotheses are not explained in order to highlight why the authors pursue the positive impact of trust and loyalty. Also, the validation of the hypotheses is done synthetically in the Conclusions section without logically substantiating the variables and correlations that were the basis of their validation.
- Thank you for your feedback. We have added some further analysis of our findings in the "Results" section in tabular form and have revised the two hypotheses stated in the "Methodology" section, so that they are expressed in the form of "research questions".

5) The authors declare a study carried out in November - December 2021, but the bibliographic sources are older than 2018. We recommend the identification of current bibliographic sources, relevant to the article.
- Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the references used and we have replaced a few of them with more recent ones.

Kind regards,
Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend that the representativeness factor in the number and structure of the respondents in the random sample should be carefully considered when conducting surveys for further studies.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your valuable feedback! Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.

1) I recommend that the representativeness factor in the number and structure of the respondents in the random sample should be carefully considered when conducting surveys for further studies.
- Thank you. We have added to the "Limitations of present study and suggestions for future research" section the perspective of future quantitative research with a larger number of participants and with a greater representativeness factor that would provide us with further impartial findings.

Kind regards,
The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript has addressed my previous comments and now obtains more interesting results regarding CSR.

Since CSR research is very well scientifically in-depth, I think it is necessary to improve the scientific connections. Authors should identify no less than 30 relevant sources about the effects of CSR

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you again for your valuable feedback! Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.

1) The revised manuscript has addressed my previous comments and now obtains more interesting results regarding CSR.
- Thank you for your feedback. Hope that our study's findings are now better and more clearly displayed.

2) Since CSR research is very well scientifically in-depth, I think it is necessary to improve the scientific connections. Authors should identify no less than 30 relevant sources about the effects of CSR
- Thank you for your feedback. We have added a few more recent references in the "Introduction" section, so that the effects and impact of CSR are more clearly presented through relevant literature sources.

Kind regards,
The Authors