Brand Trust in the Mongolian Cashmere Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents an appropriate theoretical framework and methodological approach. The theme is also relevant and makes theoretical and applied contributions. Congratulations to the authors. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

1 - The authors could increase the depth of the literature review by including recent studies on brand trust in other high-value and culturally significant markets (e.g. silk in India, wine in France). This could illustrate the universality of brand trust in differentiated products, further justifying the study's focus on Mongolian cashmere;

2 - Still within the scope of the theoretical framework, it is suggested that studies from the last three years specifically related to sustainable business practices and brand management of differentiated goods be incorporated. For example, articles on how transparency and CSR influence consumer trust could strengthen the theoretical framework and align it with the study's hypotheses;

3 - When the authors mention “2023 recent review highlighted that cashmere is a perfect case to explore how people assign value.”, they should explain which studies in particular;

4 - The bibliographical references (from line 475 onwards) should be standardized in terms of citation norms (they are very heterogeneous - examples: references number 2 and number 6);

5 - The structure of the information-gathering instrument (survey) must be made explicit (the studies referred to in its preparation and validation must all be referred to specifically). It is suggested that a paragraph be included describing how the survey instruments were adapted or validated for the Mongolian context. Specify whether measures were taken to avoid bias (e.g. cultural bias). Explain why certain statistical methods were chosen, such as confirmatory factor analysis, and how they address the objectives of the study;

6 - Figure 1 (research model) should highlight the hypotheses;

7 - In addition to the legend, the tables must indicate the source (even if they are the result of the authors' own elaboration);

8 - Text formatting (paragraphs and text after tables should be revised). For instance, use more specific subheadings for each hypothesis in the results section. This will make it easier for readers to follow the narrative of how each hypothesis was tested.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 1

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions regarding our study. We appreciate your recognition of the theoretical framework and methodological approach, as well as the relevance of our theme. We are committed to enhancing the quality of our work and will address each of your points as follows:

1. Literature Review: We expanded the literature review to include recent studies on brand trust in culturally significant markets, such as silk in India and wine in France. We integrated into line numbers 78-88 and highlighted in the manuscript.
2. Sustainable Business Practices: We agree that incorporating recent studies on sustainable business practices and brand management will strengthen our theoretical framework. We included systematic review including 63 studies in the line 121-122.
3. Reference to Recent Review: We cited recent studies under 1 and 2 reviewer’s comment.  
4. Standardization of References: We standardized the bibliographical references according to the JAMA style.
5. Survey Instrument Structure: We expalined the structure of our survey instrument, including the studies that informed its preparation and validation. Additionally, we included a paragraph describing how the survey was adapted for the Mongolian context, outlining measures taken to avoid biases, such as cultural bias in the line 246-254. We also explained our choice of statistical methods, particularly confirmatory factor analysis, and how these methods address the study's objectives in the line 279-287.
6. Research Model (Figure 1): We revised Figure 1 to clearly highlight the hypotheses in the table 3, enhancing its effectiveness in communicating our research model.
7. Table Legends: We ensured that all tables include a source note, even if they are based on our own elaboration, to maintain clarity and transparency.
8. Text Formatting: We revised the text formatting, including clearer subheadings for each hypothesis in the results section.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments. We are confident that these revisions will strengthen our manuscript and improve its contribution to the field. We look forward to submitting an improved version for your review.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your positive feedback and for taking the time to provide a review of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study investigates the factors influencing brand trust within the Mongolian cashmere industry. It analyzes the impact of product quality, brand reputation, transparency, customer service, and environmental and social responsibility on consumer trust in cashmere brands. Through a survey of 815 participants, the research identifies key drivers of brand trust, finding that higher product quality, strong brand reputation, effective customer service, and corporate responsibility significantly enhance trust. The study highlights the importance of transparent operations and a commitment to sustainability in building consumer confidence. It concludes by emphasizing practical implications for Mongolian cashmere brands to strengthen trust through quality control, transparency, and eco-friendly practices.

The study is well-structured, however, I have few suggestions that could improve the quality of the paper:

1. In the introduction, please state clearly the research questions and why this study is required, there are many studies that investigated consumer trust, what is unique about this study? 

2. The theoretical background is very light and requires much elaboration on highlighting the current research gaps.

3. The theoretical background is not current and is almost old literature. Thus I think that the authors need to look/cite at new literature in the filed of consumer trust, such as:

- Khamitov, M., Rajavi, K., Huang, D.W. and Hong, Y., 2024. Consumer trust: Meta-analysis of 50 years of empirical research. Journal of Consumer Research, 51(1), pp.7-18.

- Al-Kfairy, M., Shuhaiber, A., Al-Khatib, A.W., Alrabaee, S. and Khaddaj, S., 2024. Understanding trust drivers of S-commerce. Heliyon, 10(1).

and many many others

- In the statistical analysis, has the authors check for common method bias, and colinearity, this must be done to ensure the reliability of the statistical analysis.

- Please elaborate on both the theoretical and practical implications of the study.

- move the research limitations section to the conclusion section.

 

Good Luck

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 3

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our study regarding brand trust in the Mongolian cashmere industry. We appreciate your recognition of the structure of the paper and your insightful suggestions for improvement. We will address each of your points as follows:

1. Research Questions and Study Rationale: We revised the introduction to clearly state the research questions and explain the unique contributions of our study in the line 61-62.
2. Theoretical Background: We acknowledge that the theoretical background needs more depth. We outlined current research gaps and provide a more comprehensive overview of the relevant literature in the line 58-60.
3. Inclusion of Current Literature: We appreciate your recommendations for recent literature on consumer trust. We will incorporate studies such as those by Khamitov et al. (2024) in the line 65-68 and Al-Kfairy et al. (2024) in the 69-72 to ensure our theoretical framework reflects the latest research.
4. Statistical Analysis Considerations: We ensured that we address common method bias and collinearity in our statistical analysis. We provided a detailed explanation of how these factors were assessed to enhance the reliability of our findings.
5. Theoretical and Practical Implications: We elaborated on both the theoretical and practical implications of our study from line 428-460, providing clearer insights into how our findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge and the practical steps that can be taken by Mongolian cashmere brands.
6. Research Limitations Section: We agreed that moving the research limitations section to the conclusion will provide a better flow to the paper. We made this adjustment in our revision.

Thank you once again for your valuable suggestions. We are committed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript and look forward to incorporating your feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

happy to accept

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the introduction, it is necessary to highlight the necessity and value of research.

2. What is the innovation of this paper?

3. Reading this paper carefully, we can find that this paper is mainly quantitative research and supplemented by qualitative research

4. The derivation of research hypotheses needs to be strengthened.

5. This paper lacks a summary and review of the existing research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper language can be further improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. You offer interesting perspectives on the influences of (social & environmental) responsibility and responsiveness) on brand trust. I offer comments and recommendations to strengthen your work.

 

2. Theory development. The relations of brand quality and reputation on trust are extremely well established and do not deserve further development. I would recommend including them as a base model rather than as hypothesized effects. This allows you to free space for more theoretical development on the effects that are of interest for the Sustainability readership. For an example for brand measures being included as base model, see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-018-3831-4

 

3. I feel you could strengthen your theoretical consideration of responsiveness and responsibility. These are really the areas of interest for the journal. In addition to the direct effects, I want to encourage you to consider interaction effects / moderations. Would theory and existing studies suggest that sustainability impacts brand effects in a way that positive responsiveness and responsibility increase the effect of quality on trust?

 

4. How did the qualitative work impact the quantitative work? It seems you report only on the quantitative work. It is surprising that you mention the qualitative work in your methods but list as a limitation, that the study was only quantitative.

 

5. Explain a bit more of the context of Cashmere product brands in your regional context. E.g., you mention product harm crises in your theory development. This is a very important aspect! I encourage you to engage more with the related current literature. Also, tell the reader more about Cashmere-related product harm crises that were publicly discussed. 

 

6. Did you exclude the 120 responses who have never used Mongolian cashmere? Please make this explicit in the manuscript. If not, what do you think about the validity of their answers?

 

7. Please present means, standard deviations, and a correlation table for the 11 indicators / items.

 

8. Please report Cronbach’s alpha for all latent constructs. 

 

9. Please report the common goodness and fit criteria for your CFA. 

 

10. Discuss discriminant validity and present the relevant criteria (eg, Fornell-Larcker).

 

11. Your CFA shows that there are you do not measure 7 constructs but rather 4. It would thus seem more convincing to expect 3 main direct effects. I would recommend adjusting your theory and hypotheses development accordingly. This allows you to include depth into your argument. -- In other words: U1 and U2 are indicators of one construct “Brand quality”, claiming to test 2 hypotheses (H1 and 2) with this data is inappropriate. This can be addressed by presenting 1 hypothesis on the relationship between brand quality and brand trust. Similar for H3&4 and H5&6. This would free space to significantly extent the development of theory (see comment 3).

 

12. You might take a more thorough look at discussions in our journal, e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/611, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10402 and engage with their arguments.

 

13. In your Discussion section (before Limitations) I would expect much more thorough consideration of how your results support or contradict existing research; this is currently less than a page and one would expect 3-4 pages. What do the results mean for the theoretical debate – relate to these debates explicitly and with references – and for the practice of Cashmere firms in Mongolia and for other firms elsewhere?

 

14. As suggested before in my comments on theory development, I would suggest to put the emphasis on what’s relevant for our journal: the impacts of your responsiveness and responsibility constructs on trust and on the very well established relationships between quality /reputation and trust.

 

I wish you good luck with this work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall adequate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper. I have the following comments:

1. Abstract

• Recommendation: Enhance clarity by summarizing the main results and implications more succinctly.
• Example: The current abstract provides a broad overview but could be improved by explicitly stating the main findings, such as, "Our analysis confirmed that brand quality and commitment to environmental responsibility significantly increase consumer trust."

2. Introduction

• Recommendation: Include a brief discussion on the economic impact of the Mongolian cashmere industry to contextualize its importance.
• Example: While the introduction mentions the industry's ranking in exports, expanding this to include economic impact data, such as employment and revenue statistics, could provide a stronger rationale for the study’s focus.

3. Literature Review

• Recommendations: 1) Introduce and compare theories on brand trust more critically to establish a stronger theoretical framework. Explain the theory behind the research model. 2) clearly indicate the gap and the research questions.
• Example: The review could benefit from a comparative analysis of the cited theories, such as contrasting cognitive-emotion theory and trust-commitment theory, to clarify their relevance and applicability to brand trust in cashmere.

4. Methodology

• Recommendation: Strengthen the sampling technique by justifying the choice of convenience sampling or considering alternative sampling methods that might increase representativeness.
• Example: The paper mentions convenience sampling but does not discuss its limitations or why it was chosen over other methods. A discussion on this choice, or considering stratified sampling to ensure diverse consumer representation, could enhance methodological rigor.

5. Results

• Recommendation: 1) Include more detailed statistical data and visualizations to support the findings. 2) several important tables and the reporting of the validity and reliability of the instrument are missing (see attached samples).
• Example: See the attached file

6. Discussion

• Recommendation: Deepen the discussion on how the findings relate to broader economic and cultural contexts in Mongolia.
• Example: Expand on how consumer trust in the cashmere industry affects broader economic trends in Mongolia, possibly integrating discussion on how cultural factors influence perceptions of brand quality and trust.

7. Conclusion

• Recommendation: Clearly state the practical implications for industry stakeholders and suggest specific strategies for cashmere brands.
• Example: The conclusion could be enhanced by directly addressing manufacturers and marketers within the industry, suggesting concrete strategies such as enhancing transparency or investing in quality assurance processes.

•  

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Clarity and Coherence (25/30)

• The writing is generally clear and the arguments are logically structured. However, some sections could benefit from more precise explanations and smoother transitions between topics to enhance reader understanding.

2. Grammar and Syntax (20/25)

• The document exhibits a strong grasp of English grammar. Minor errors are present but do not significantly hinder comprehension. More careful proofreading could eliminate these issues.

3. Vocabulary and Style (20/25)

• The vocabulary used is appropriate for an academic paper, effectively conveying complex ideas. However, there's occasional redundancy and overuse of certain terms. Diversifying language use could improve the stylistic quality.

4. Consistency and Formatting (15/20)

• The document maintains a consistent format in terms of citation and structure. However, some inconsistencies in terminology and formatting styles are noted, which could be streamlined for a more professional presentation.

Overall Score: 80/100

• The paper is well-written with a solid foundation in academic writing standards. To reach a higher score, focus on enhancing the precision of language, improving grammatical accuracy, and ensuring consistency throughout the document. A final round of meticulous editing would refine the work and elevate its overall quality.

• Example 1: Grammatical Accuracy

  Original Text (Page 3, Lines 75-76): "Greater transparency indeed positively correlates with a higher level of brand trust."

  Issue: The sentence structure is awkward and could be more direct to enhance clarity.

  Suggested Edit: "Indeed, greater transparency positively correlates with a higher level of brand trust."

Example 2: Precision of Language

• Original Text (Page 4, Lines 83-85): "Effective and timely issue resolution plays a crucial role in enhancing brand trust, with perceived justice acting as a key mediator."
• Issue: The phrase "plays a crucial role" is somewhat vague and could be more directly linked to the outcomes discussed.
• Suggested Edit: "Effective and timely issue resolution significantly strengthens brand trust, with perceived justice serving as a vital intermediary."

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Practical Implications should be linked to the research object, and relatively detailed and specific suggestions and measures should be provided.

2. The latest literature is particularly scarce, it is recommended to add the latest references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are not very academic and require further improvement.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Comment 1: Practical Implications should be linked to the research object, and relatively detailed and specific suggestions and measures should be provided.

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the practical implications section to ensure it is closely linked to the research object. The detailed and specific suggestions and measures provided are as follows:

• Improving Brand Quality: To reassure customers about the genuineness and caliber of the goods, strict quality control procedures must be put in place, certificates must be obtained, and labels must be shown.
• Brands could invest in environmentally friendly production techniques, source cashmere from sustainable farms, and emphasize these practices in their marketing materials as part of their commitment to environmental responsibility.
• Transparency and Communication: To foster trust and exhibit transparency, offer comprehensive supply chain information and keep lines of communication open.
• Customer Service Excellence: To demonstrate to customers that they are appreciated, provide individualized shopping experiences and train customer service personnel to be empathetic and responsive.
• Encouraging Environmental Responsibility: To educate and engage consumers, start environmental campaigns, and produce instructional materials on sustainable fashion.

These measures are based on the insights gained from our survey and interviews, aligning with the identified predictors of brand trust such as quality, reputation, transparency, customer service, and environmental responsibility.

Comment 2: The latest literature is particularly scarce; it is recommended to add the latest references.

We appreciate your suggestion. We have conducted a thorough review of the latest literature and incorporated recent references to enhance the scholarly foundation of our study. The updated references [1]  [2, 3]include recent studies on brand trust, consumer behavior in the cashmere industry, and sustainable fashion practices. All new updates highlighted in yellow.

1. Marmat, G., A framework for transitioning brand trust to brand love. Management Decision, 2023. 61(6): p. 1554-1584.
2. Graber, K.E., Textures of value: Tactility, experience, and exclusion in the cashmere commodity chain. Economic Anthropology, 2023. 10(2): p. 186-196.
3. Khan, I. and M. Fatma CSR Influence on Brand Image and Consumer Word of Mouth: Mediating Role of Brand Trust. Sustainability, 2023. 15, DOI: 10.3390/su15043409.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Some sentences are not very academic and require further improvement.

Thank you for addressing this matter. We have thoroughly reviewed and refined the manuscript to enhance its academic language quality. The revisions focus on restructuring sentences to improve clarity, removing colloquial expressions, and ensuring overall formality of the text. As non-native speakers, we would appreciate your guidance on whether language editing services are necessary for further refinement. Please advise accordingly.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your thorough efforts to revise this paper for better quality.

Unfortunately, the additional data makes transparent a fundamental problem of your manuscript: The model does not fit the data. The reported goodness indicators, TFI and CFI in particular would need to be above .9 and yours are as low as .7 which means that your data does not match your theory. In addition, the fact that you report one Cronbach's alpha value for a measurement model with four distinct factors suggests that there might be some fundamental misunderstanding about the presented criteria.

I am sorry for not being more positive and I wish you good luck! 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Adequate.

Author Response

Thank you sincerely for your thorough review and insightful feedback on our manuscript.

We appreciate your careful assessment of our model's fit to the data. We agree that our reported goodness-of-fit indicators, particularly TFI and CFI, fall below the desired threshold of .9, indicating a significant gap between our theoretical framework and the empirical data.

Regarding the Cronbach's alpha values, we recognize the importance of clarity in presenting measurement model details, especially with multiple distinct factors. We apologize for any confusion our initial reporting may have caused.

We view your comments as crucial for refining our study. 

We kindly request your guidance and support as we work toward addressing these issues in subsequent revisions. Your expertise is invaluable to us, and we are committed to ensuring the manuscript meets the high standards required for publication.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful evaluation and encouragement.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript satisfactorily.

Author Response

Thank you for acknowledging the satisfactory revisions made to the manuscript.

We appreciate your positive assessment and look forward to your further guidance on next steps.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

If I haven't overlooked any materials, then you ask me for guidance on how to improve the paper. 
Unfortunately, I see a major challenge: You have developed theory. You have collected data. You have run confirmatory analyses; and these analyses show that your data does not fit your model. In other words, the real world does not support the theory that you developed. In my view, this makes the paper unpublishable, because you develop a story and you show that the story is not true. Non-true stories are of limited interest to our community. 

You ask for guidance, which I appreaciate a lot. However, the level of fundamental methods that would need to be explained, is too large to cover. Any textbook on multivariate analyses should help to understand
- the difference between single and multi-item measures.
- ways to assess multi-item measures (Cronbach's alpha for each measure; in Table 2 for U1&2, U3&4, U5&6, U7-11)
- CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis (your figure 2)

Existing publications would help you to understand how hypotheses are usually developed on construct basis and not on item basis.  Similarly, presenting your model visualisation (figure 1) from left (independent variables) to right (dependent variable(s)) would be more common and easier to understand.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and insightful feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide detailed guidance on improving my paper. Based on your comments, I have undertaken the following revisions:

1. Theory vs. Data Mismatch:
• Before I started my data collection, I have conducted an extensive literature to develop my hypothesis based on the previously published empirical research works. I was also searching theories related with my hypothesis. Most of them was empirical research findings.
2. Methodological Improvements:
• Multi-Item Measures: I have clarified the rationale for choosing multi-item measures for my selected variables in the study. Brand trust variables were 5 items which has been informed by established scales in the literature. All other predictor variables were two-items. Detailed explanations are provided in the methodology section lines 187-189.
• Cronbach's Alpha: Cronbach's alpha values for each multi-item measure are now included in Table 2 to demonstrate reliability.
• CFA: After reviewing initial CFA results indicating poor fit (e.g., CFI = 0.769, TLI = 0.711, GFI = 0.173), we revised the model by:
1. Removing non-significant paths identified by modification indices.
2. Adding covariance between errors terms of related indicators
3. Refining latent constructs based on theoretical insights and item performance.

Therefore, subsequent model iterations yielded improved fit indices (e.g., CFI = 0.922, TLI = 0.905, RMSEA = 0.058, SRMR = 0.074), indicating that the revised model better captures the relationships among variables. These adjustments were guided by both statistical indices and theoretical considerations, ensuring alignment with our research hypotheses and prior literature. This has been revised in the lines 230-231.

1. Hypothesis Development:
• Hypotheses have been reframed on a construct basis, following standard practices in the literature, lines from 111-172.
2. Model Visualization:
• The model visualization has been revised to follow conventional standards, presenting independent variables on the left and dependent variables on the right, replaced in the Figure 1 as research model.

I hope these revisions address your concerns and improve the overall quality of the paper. I am grateful for your guidance and am open to any further suggestions you may have.

Best regards,

Baigalzaya

Author Response File: Author Response.docx