Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper present a very interesting study of the relation between Consumer-Brand and Circular Economy practices in Saudi Arabia, with results related with consumer behavior.

    Format poins:

Subsections, as 2.1.1, are just justified if there is subsequent subsection 2.1.2.

Section 2.1: missing [26] and [28] in quotations. Section 2.2: : missing [49] and [50] in quotations. In general, many quotations in section 2 is only in the form Author (date), without [n].

The phrase “Hiort af Ornäs (2009) indicates that consumers are increasingly open to circular models” (line 238) looks out of context, since CE concept is subsequent to the reference

Table 1. It is necessary to present both SD and Variance?

 

      Content

The references and content from line 64 to 68 looks out of context.

In general, the Introduction fails to characterize the state-of-art regarding the theme: CE, brand personality and consumer behavior. It is important to detach the paper contribution. Or the authors may add a new section subsection in section 2: Related Works.

The discussion may include a table summarizing the hypothesis test to all hypotheses H0-i and H1-i. It can turn the results more easily to readers.

Although the paper defines a national scope limitation – Saudi Arabia – a discussion of the results compared to similar studies in other countries would be very interesting. Again, the lack of related works is felt. If the authors have not found similar works, this should be highlighted. I run the search string "Consumer-Brand" AND "Circular Economy" in Web of Science, with zero results. The authors could to explore it more, to improve the contribution of this study and the possibility of replication to other countries or regions.

Author Response

Reviewer 1's Comments:

Comment 1: Subsections, as 2.1.1, are just justified if there is subsequent subsection 2.1.2.

Response to Comment 1: Thank you for pointing out the issue with the use of subsections. We have reviewed the relevant sections and made necessary adjustments to ensure proper formatting and clarity.

Comment 2: Section 2.1: missing [26] and [28] in quotations. Section 2.2: missing [49] and [50] in quotations. In general, many quotations in section 2 are only in the form Author (date), without [n].

Response to Comment 2: Thank you for your comments. The reference style has been corrected throughout the manuscript as per your suggestions.

Comment 3: The phrase “Hiort af Ornäs (2009) indicates that consumers are increasingly open to circular models” (line 238) looks out of context, since the CE concept is subsequent to the reference.

Response to Comment 3: Thank you for your feedback. The reference to Rexfelt and Hiort af Ornäs [51] highlights specific models of the circular economy that consumers are receptive to, particularly sharing and leasing, especially when these models offer cost savings. This insight is crucial for our discussion as it underscores the types of CE practices that have the potential to gain consumer acceptance. This provides necessary context for exploring how these models can be successfully adopted in developing economies, despite the challenges they face. We hope this clarification demonstrates the relevance of the reference in our manuscript.

Comment 4: Table 1. It is necessary to present both SD and Variance?

Response to Comment 4: Thank you for your comment regarding the presentation of both SD and variance in Table 1. We recognise that presenting both may be redundant. We have revised the table accordingly.

Comment 5: The references and content from line 64 to 68 look out of context.

Response to Comment 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and for highlighting this point. We believe the reference provides critical context on global sustainability trends and consumer awareness, which are foundational for understanding the importance and urgency of adopting CE practices.

Comment 6: In general, the Introduction fails to characterize the state-of-art regarding the theme: CE, brand personality, and consumer behavior. It is important to detach the paper contribution. Or the authors may add a new section subsection in section 2: Related Works.

Response to Comment 6: Thank you for your insightful feedback. The Introduction has been updated to reflect your remarks on the research theme. The Literature Review section also comprehensively covers the latest research and developments in these areas, ensuring a detailed and thorough understanding of the current landscape.

Comment 7: The discussion may include a table summarizing the hypothesis test for all hypotheses H0-I and H1-i. It can turn the results more easily to readers.

Response to Comment 7: Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated a table summarising the hypothesis tests for all hypotheses to enhance the clarity and accessibility of the results for readers. The revised discussion section now includes this table.

Comment 8: Although the paper defines a national scope limitation – Saudi Arabia – a discussion of the results compared to similar studies in other countries would be very interesting. Again, the lack of related works is felt. If the authors have not found similar works, this should be highlighted. I ran the search string “Consumer-Brand” AND “Circular Economy” in Web of Science, with zero results. The authors could explore it more, to improve the contribution of this study and the possibility of replication to other countries or regions.

Response to Comment 8: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have addressed your concerns as follows:

1. Comparison with Similar Studies: We have incorporated comparisons with studies conducted in other regions, such as those by Loureiro et al. (2012), Japutra et al. (2019), Aaker (1997), and Keller and Lehmann (2006), to provide a broader context for our findings. This comparison has been added to Section 5.1 of the Discussion.
2. Acknowledgment of Related Works: We have noted the lack of related works specifically examining the intersection of brand personality, CE, and consumer behaviour in the Saudi Arabian context. This acknowledgment has been included in the Introduction and Discussion sections.
3. Implications of the Absence of Similar Works: We have explored the implications of the absence of similar studies on the contribution of our research. By highlighting this gap, we underscore the pioneering nature of our study and its potential for replication in other countries or regions. This discussion is included in the revised Introduction and Discussion sections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author investigated many aspects. My suggestion is to reconsider whether all the content is necessary and to divide it into primary and secondary discussions. In other words, the secondary content can be reduced and summarized in one or two sentences.

 

The reliability and validity analysis conducted by the author is commendable, but exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha alone are insufficient. You must further confirm the convergent validity within each construct and the discriminant validity between constructs before investigating each construct. You need to supplement and demonstrate the entire process of reliability and validity analysis.

 

Detailed explanations about PCA, EFA, and ANOVA can be omitted, as these are very basic data analysis methods. You only need to explain the parameters you set for the analysis, not the computational formulas or application value of these methods in the methodology section.

 

I recommend adding a comprehensive table of the survey questionnaire in the appendix for clarity on what was asked. Additionally, the questionnaire must be based on literature unless you are conducting a scale development study.

 

Moreover, the distribution of data is a necessary aspect to check. Both ANOVA and MRA are based on the assumptions of normal distribution and linear relationships.

 

Some Figures and tables lack titles.

 

I suggest using CB-SEM or PLS-SEM for model estimation instead of MRA, as multiple estimations might introduce errors in path coefficients.

 

Overall, the paper has some merit, but there is significant room for improvement. The current version of the manuscript seems far from ready for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2's Comments:

Comment 1: The author investigated many aspects. My suggestion is to reconsider whether all the content is necessary and to divide it into primary and secondary discussions. In other words, the secondary content can be reduced and summarised in one or two sentences.

Response to Comment 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. The Discussion section of the manuscript has now been updated to reflect this suggestion. The primary aspects, including the hypotheses and a summary table of the hypothesis tests, form the initial part of the section. This is followed by a more concise presentation of secondary content.

Comment 2: The reliability and validity analysis conducted by the author is commendable, but exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha alone are insufficient. You must further confirm the convergent validity within each construct and the discriminant validity between constructs before investigating each construct. You need to supplement and demonstrate the entire process of reliability and validity analysis.

Response to Comment 2: Thank you for the feedback on the reliability and validity analysis. The methodology section has been updated to include additional steps confirming the convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs.

Comment 3: Detailed explanations about PCA, EFA, and ANOVA can be omitted, as these are very basic data analysis methods. You only need to explain the parameters you set for the analysis, not the computational formulas or application value of these methods in the methodology section.

Response to Comment 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the methodology section to address your concerns. Detailed explanations of PCA and EFA have been omitted, and only the parameters set for these analyses are now described. The revised methodology section now focuses on the specific parameters and processes applied in the study.

Comment 4: I recommend adding a comprehensive table of the survey questionnaire in the appendix for clarity on what was asked. Additionally, the questionnaire must be based on literature unless you are conducting a scale development study.

Response to Comment 4: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a comprehensive table of the survey questionnaire in the appendix.

Comment 5: Moreover, the distribution of data is a necessary aspect to check. Both ANOVA and MRA are based on the assumptions of normal distribution and linear relationships.

Response to Comment 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge the importance of verifying the distribution of data when employing statistical methods such as ANOVA and Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA). In response to your comment, we conducted a thorough assessment of the data distribution and found that the Aggregate Brand Personality Score (ABPS) did not follow a normal distribution. To address this issue, we replaced the parametric tests (ANOVA and t-tests) with appropriate non-parametric alternatives, specifically the Kruskal-Wallis H test and Mann-Whitney U test. Additionally, we revised the regression analyses by employing Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), which does not rely on assumptions of normality and linearity. The revised results are presented in the manuscript accordingly.

Comment 6: Some Figures and tables lack titles.

Response to Comment 6: All figures and tables have been given titles now.

Comment 7: I suggest using CB-SEM or PLS-SEM for model estimation instead of MRA, as multiple estimations might introduce errors in path coefficients.

Response to Comment 7: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your recommendation, we have replaced the Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) with Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) throughout the manuscript. This change addresses the potential issue of errors in path coefficients due to multiple estimations, as PLS-SEM is more suitable for handling complex models with multiple relationships. Changes in the Manuscript: • Section 3.5 Data Analysis: The methodology has been updated to describe the use of PLS-SEM instead of MRA. • Section 4.7 Influence of Circular Practices on Brand Loyalty: The results were reanalyzed using PLS-SEM, and the corresponding statistics were reported. • Section 4.8 The Impact of Demographics on Sustainable Purchasing: Similarly, this section was reanalyzed using PLS-SEM, replacing the previous MRA approach. • Discussion Section: The discussion of the results has also been updated to reflect the new findings from the PLS-SEM analysis.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please do not retain any tracked changes in the revised manuscript. Present it with a cleaner appearance, and simply highlight the changes in red.