Brand Activism for Sustainable Development Goals: A Comparative Analysis in the Beauty and Personal Care Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is interesting.

The abstract is well structured.

The “Introduction” section is well structured and argued.

The “Conceptual background“ section is relatively well argued. I recommend a closer connection of this section with the "Discussion" section (e.g., explain Authentic Brand Activism and Silent Brand Activism). I also recommend supplementing the works of other authors.

The methodology used is adequate and is appropriately explained and justified.

The "Results" section is well structured and argued.

Regarding the "Discussion" section, links to the works of other authors should be added.

The “Conclusion” section contains all the required details.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and recommendations have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described below.

1.2.3.  Thank you so much for your appreciation.

4. As you kindly suggested, a greater connection was made between the conceptual background and the discussion. In fact, the typology of Brand Activism theorised by Vredenburg et al. (2020) was explained more explicitly and thus the two different typologies used in this paper as: Authentic Brand Activism and Silent Brand Activism.

5. Thank you for you kind comment.

Thank you so much.

7. The discussion section has been expanded, providing new details and is supplemented with more recent references. This served to contextualise the present research paper in contemporary discussions on Brand Activism.

8. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are recommended to provide some additional supports, in terms of statistics and case examples, to justify the importance of this study in the introduction section. 

The authors are recommended to discuss the importance of building brand relationship in the introduction and literature review section. The following articles are important and should be included in the introduction and literature review section. 

Cheung, M. L., Pires, G. D., Rosenberger, P. J., Leung, W. K., & Sharipudin, M. N. S. (2021). The role of consumer-consumer interaction and consumer-brand interaction in driving consumer-brand engagement and behavioral intentions. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 61, 102574.

Fernandes, T., & Moreira, M. (2019). Consumer brand engagement, satisfaction and brand loyalty: a comparative study between functional and emotional brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and recommendations have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described below.

1.Thank you for the valuable suggestion. To support the research work, we have implemented the introduction section with case studies and statistics.

2. Thank you for the constructive feedback. As suggested, we have taken into consideration the importance of brand relationship building and included the given references in both the introduction and literature review.  

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.I found the paper to be well-written it was not so clear in terms of the theoretical contribution or the methods used. With some reworking to enhance the engagement with theory to show how this work contributes and with more methodological rigor, and a more refined analysis.

2.The discussion do not provide enough detail. The theoretical analysis of this paper is limited. More theoretical building needs to be further explicated. It would be better to situate the discussion in the wider literature and relate it to broader debates and issues in global context.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and recommendations have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described below.

1. We thank the reviewer for the encouraging feedback.

The article contributes to the literature on Brand Activism practices by emphasising the importance of the values of consistency and authenticity over Brand Activism as a mere utilitarian goal of financial return often linked to the phenomenon of woke washing. Case studies and statistics were implemented to justify the importance of this study. In the literature review, some important theoretical contributions were better explained, which allowed us to classify the Brand Activism practices of the cases analysed in this study. In the methodology section, the areas of the researchers and the approach used were clarified.

2.Thank you for pointing out these concerns.

The discussion section has been expanded, providing new details and is supplemented with more recent references. This served to contextualise the present research paper in contemporary discussions on Brand Activism. 

In addition, to deepen the theoretical construction of the paper, the typology of Brand Activism theorised by Vredenburg et al. (2020) was explained and the importance of building a brand relationship supported by authors such as Cheung et al. (2021) and Fernandes, T., & Moreira, M. (2019) was discussed.

Best Regards

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The English need improvement since there are some grammatical and syntax errors in the manuscript. For example,

·         in line number 39, the words “up by” may be as “up of”;

·         in line number 75, “complying to” as “complying with”;

·         in line number 75, “that influences” as “which influences”;

·         in line number 88, “the Sustainable” as “Sustainable”;

·         in line number 98, “company's” as “the company's”;

·         in line number 144, “is empowered” as “are empowered”;

·         in line number 150, “demonstrating” as “by demonstrating”;

·         in line number 211, “long-standing” as “a long-standing”;

·         in line number 282, “, safety” as “, and safety”;

·         in line number 283, “activism” as “the activism”;

·         in line number 328, “, product-” as “, and product-”;

·         in line number 330, “, known” as “, and known”.

The grammar mistakes which are not mentioned hence are also to be checked and corrected properly.

2. There are some typing mistakes as well, and authors are advised to carefully proof-read the text. For example,

·         in line number 12, the words “policy makers” may be as “policymakers”;

·         in line number 104, “underling” as “underlying”;

·         in line number 191, “in depth” as “in-depth”;

·         in line number 221, “Initially” as “Initially,”;

·         in line number 275, “diversity'.” as “diversity.”;

·         in line number 286, “key words” as “keywords”;

·         in line number 300, “Further” as “Further,”;

·         in line number 310, “Dove the” as “Dove, the”;

·         in line number 319, “Instagram are” as “Instagram, are”.

 The typos not mentioned here are also to be checked and corrected properly.

3. Check the abbreviations throughout the manuscript and introduce the abbreviation when the full word appears the first time in the abstract and the remaining for the text and then use only the abbreviation (For example, Brand activism (BA), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), , etc.,). Make a word abbreviated in the article that is repeated at least three times in the text, not all words  to be abbreviated. The authors should avoid the usage of abbreviations in the keywords.

4. In the abstract, the authors have focused in general, and it should be rewritten with the objectives, tools used to prove the objectives, results obtained and the conclusion derived form the present investigation.

5. The paragraphs are very long paragraphs and it may be divided into small paragraphs for the better understanding of the readers.

6. The table legends should be improved and a proper footnote should be given. All legends should have enough description for a reader to understand the tables without having to refer back to the main text of the manuscript. For example, the necessary abbreviations should be given (NGOs).

7. The authors may improve the discussion of their results by focusing on the present findings and introducing data from other authors who also worked with the same or other studies with recent references.

8. The limitation of the present investigation may be given along with conclusion or under separate heading for understanding the concepts clearly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and recommendations have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described below.

1. Thank you for the helpful suggestion.

The grammatical and syntax errors have been corrected.

2. Thank you for the recommendation.

The typing errors have been corrected.

3. Many thanks for the kind tip.

Abbreviations have been checked in the text and removed from keywords.

 4. Thank you very much, as kindly advised, the abstract has been rewritten by supplementing it with the results and conclusions.

 5. Thank you, we have taken your suggestion and we have divided the longer paragraphs into shorter ones.

6. Thanks for the recommendation. The table has not only been moved close to the text quoting it for better understanding, but also better explained in the text introducing it. The abbreviation NGO has been clarified.

7. Thank you. The discussion section was expanded by better highlighting the research findings and was supplemented with more recent references. This served to contextualise the present research work in contemporary discussions on Brand Activism.

8. The limitations are within the paragraph we have entitled: "Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research".

Best Regards

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors

The study is interesting and pertinent to the present day. However, there are flaws in the manuscript that need to be resolved.

Abstract - lack of a declaration of the most important results and the conclusion. The first contact of the manuscript with the reader is through the abstract; if there is not enough information, the reader may not even read the work.

Keywords – I suggest deleting SDGs and, instead, including Sustainability or Agenda 2030, which are more comprehensive topics.

Introduction:

The statement "The complex modern environment of global socio-political uncertainty demands that companies rethink their practices to manage the economic, social and environmental impacts of their businesses with an orientation towards sustainable development, as stakeholders at various levels have requested (governments, institutions, consumers, public opinion, etc.). " is strong. Which author underpins this statement? It takes an author or more than one for that endorsement. Otherwise, it's a value judgment.

Several introduction passages need authors, which is a problem because the text is also anchored in a positivist character. Companies don't "choose" to do brand activism voluntarily. That's an innocent thought. Companies meet laws and make this "obligation" a competitive advantage. The same is true of Agenda 2030. Authors should be more critical in their positivist approach. Two authors are from the area of Communication (Political and Communication Sciences), so this criticism is necessary by these specialists. Otherwise, it is a marketing and non-scientific text.

The introduction needs to be revised for scientific work, possibly due to the positive marketing character the authors committed to giving at the beginning, justifying its realization. But, the study is problematizing, the problem-question statement, the work's objectives, and how the work is organized. 

"Several studies have highlighted the negative effects of BA on consumers [15,16] and investors [13]". Unfortunately, several studies are limited to more than two or three references. Please make the correct adjustment: insert more references or write "some studies".

"Many authors support the idea that being an activist brand requires a paradigm shift in the interpretation of social responsibility, which is no longer marketing-driven (as in cause-related marketing), nor corporate-driven (as in CSR) but purpose-driven [10,2,17]". 

Here there is the same problem as the previous comment. The authors of the study tend to generalize the published studies on the subject, while only a few published studies have this position. Again, this needs to be corrected in scientific text.

In section 2.1 Brand activism - The reader is frustrated because he does not find the different concepts about Brand activism. Does only Kotler write on this topic? Isn't there any other author to talk about this topic? Many gaps that are not resolved by the authors of the study.

"Several scholars argue that Brand Activism is linked to the approach of Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA), which refers to adopting a specific stance on a political or social issue [18]."  Does this mean that "several scholars" refers only to 01 bibliographic references? This is incoherent and a severe flaw in the scientific text. The expressions "various" and "many" are in all the work, and this frustrates the reader when he realizes that it is only a single bibliographic reference. Using a single bibliographic reference to make generalized statements, such as authors do their work, is an indication of value judgment. And value judgment is not suitable in texts of a scientific nature. 

"Indeed, brands have always been a key cultural force in establishing hegemonic cultural identities and conditioning the identities of individuals [31]. " This statement is from Holt, D. B. (2004), and the authors say that "brands have always been a key cultural force [...]", perhaps it was 19 years ago (until 2004). But what about 2023? Which author underpins this statement? Holt himself? In what published work? The theme is current, but the authors need to use more sources. That's a problem.

"This procedure was conducted by three researchers independently to ensure data triangulation [43]. " This information needs more data for the reader to understand how the authors of the study made the selection of these 3 independent researchers. Even if the name of these researchers is not mentioned in the study (which is appropriate not to mention names), it is necessary to say what area of these researchers and what inclusion and exclusion criteria led the authors of the study to choose these researchers and not others. In scientific research, everything must be detailed in the methodology section.

I suggest relocating to "Table 1. - The BA comparison matrix of the brands Dove and L'Oréal" before the text "The brand purpose of Dove is 'Let's change beauty. We believe beauty should be a source of confidence and not anxiety. " Doing so, as is being suggested, the readers of the work better understand the table since it will be close to the text that makes it mentioned.

Table 1 is exciting. I suggest inserting a text after the table to complement it.

I suggest extending session 5 because the discussion of a work of this size can have deeper discussions due to the activism of brands of companies being a current theme. In addition, because it is a contemporary theme, I recommend that more up-to-date references be inserted, at least in the last three years.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and reccomendations have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described below.

1. Thank you very much, as you kindly recommended, results and conclusions have been added in the abstract.

2. Thanks for the suggestion. The keyword 'SDGs' has been replaced with 'Agenda 2030'.

3. Thank you for reporting this issue.

We decided to remove this introductory part because we felt it was complicated to explain in one concise sentence the many significant global changes of recent years (e.g. socio-economic crisis, Covid-19, wars, etc.). For this reason, we wanted to give more emphasis to the sustainable development goals introduced by the UN Agenda 2030.

4. We thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. We have tried to dampen the positivist view. As suggested, we have revised part of the introduction by supplementing it with new scientific references, case studies, and statistics to justify and support the work.
5. "Several" studies was changed to "Some".

6."Many" authors was changed to "Other" authors

7. Thank you for reporting this gap. As suggested, new concepts of brand activism have been added in this section and the difference with corporate social activities has also been pointed out.

8. "Several scholars claim that" has been replaced with "Part of the academic literature", however, new references have been added.

Best Regards

Maria

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is good to publish now. 

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for updating the manuscript. It has become more understandable to the brand-specialized reader.

Best Regards