Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Sustainability. After careful evaluation, I must inform you that your paper requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. While your research addresses a relevant topic within the corporate social responsibility domain, several critical issues must be addressed to meet the journal's publication standards.

Major Concerns

1. Methodological Limitations

Your cross-sectional design fundamentally limits the causal inferences you claim regarding the mediating relationships between CSR, Brand Image, Brand Love, and Brand Loyalty. The use of terms such as "influence" and "impact" throughout your manuscript implies causality that cannot be established with your current methodology. For publication in Sustainability, you must either adopt a longitudinal design or explicitly acknowledge these limitations and reframe your findings as associative rather than causal relationships.

2. Sampling and Generalizability Issues

Your sample of 296 consumers from Antofagasta, Chile, represents a significant limitation to the external validity of your findings. The geographic and demographic restrictions (60.1% male, average age 25 years) severely limit the generalizability of your results beyond this specific context. The justification for focusing exclusively on this region is insufficient, particularly given that your conclusions are presented as broadly applicable to mobile phone service consumers.

3. Theoretical Contribution and Integration

The manuscript lacks a substantial theoretical contribution beyond confirming existing relationships documented in prior literature. Your claim that the simultaneous integration of Brand Image and Brand Love as mediators represents a novel contribution is insufficient, as both variables are already recognized as mediators in similar contexts. More critically, the integration with sustainability themes, central to this journal, is superficial and requires significant strengthening.

4. Statistical and Analytical Concerns

Several technical issues require attention:

• Your SRMR value of 0.08 is at the threshold of acceptability, suggesting potential model misspecification that is not adequately discussed
• The Harman's single-factor test alone is insufficient to address common method bias concerns
• The elimination of three items (BLv4, BLv6, BIm6) during analysis raises questions about content validity and potential data overfitting
• Additional model fit indices should be reported and discussed

5. Discussion and Implications

Your discussion inadequately addresses the theoretical implications of your key finding that CSR does not directly influence Brand Loyalty. This counterintuitive result contradicts substantial prior research and deserves more thorough examination. Furthermore, the implications for sustainability practice and theory are underdeveloped, which is particularly concerning for a journal focused on sustainability issues.

Specific Revision Requirements

1. Strengthen Theoretical Framework: Provide a more robust theoretical foundation that meaningfully integrates sustainability concepts with your proposed relationships. Explain how your findings contribute to sustainability theory and practice.
2. Methodological Enhancement: Either expand your sample to include multiple geographic regions and demographic groups, or significantly limit your claims to the specific context studied. Consider longitudinal data collection if feasible.
3. Analytical Rigor: Implement additional controls for common method bias, report comprehensive model fit statistics, and provide thorough justification for item elimination procedures.
4. Enhanced Discussion: Substantially expand your discussion of the theoretical and practical implications, particularly addressing why CSR lacks direct effects on loyalty and what this means for sustainability initiatives in telecommunications.
5. Sustainability Integration: Demonstrate clear connections between your findings and broader sustainability objectives, including environmental and social responsibility implications.

Minor Issues.

Several grammatical errors and unclear expressions require attention, the literature review could benefit from more recent sources, particularly in sustainability research, figure and table presentations need improvement for clarity

Conclusion

While your research addresses an important topic, the manuscript requires major revisions across theoretical, methodological, and analytical dimensions. I encourage you to address these concerns comprehensively, as the core research question remains valuable for the sustainability and marketing communities.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript, which should include a detailed response letter addressing each concern raised.

Sincerely,
Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates adequate English proficiency for academic communication, but several language improvements are necessary to enhance clarity and professional presentation.​

The text contains minor grammatical inconsistencies, particularly in complex sentence structures. For example, some sentences exhibit awkward constructions that could be streamlined for better readability. The use of passive voice is occasionally excessive and could benefit from more active constructions to improve engagement.​

While the overall academic tone is appropriate, some expressions could be refined for greater precision. The abstract, in particular, would benefit from more concise language, several sentences are unnecessarily complex and could be simplified without losing meaning.​

The manuscript maintains reasonable consistency in technical terminology, though some variations occur. The abbreviations (CSR, BIm, BLv, BLy) are appropriately introduced and used throughout.​

The literature review section demonstrates good organization, but transitions between paragraphs could be smoother. Some theoretical explanations would benefit from clearer, more direct expression. The methodology section is generally well-written but contains some redundant explanations that could be condensed.​

The manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading by a native English speaker or professional academic editor to polish the language and enhance overall readability. While the content is academically sound, improved English expression would significantly strengthen the manuscript's impact and accessibility for international readers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1.

Thank you very much for your feedback on our research. Our research group has addressed all your concerns. To easily identify the corrections, we have highlighted them in yellow. Regarding English grammar, we sought assistance from a native English speaker at our university, who helped us improve the writing and correct the language. Below, we describe the observations and their respective corrections.

Observation 1. Methodological Limitations: Your cross-sectional design fundamentally limits the causal inferences you claim regarding the mediating relationships between CSR, Brand Image, Brand Love, and Brand Loyalty. The use of terms such as "influence" and "impact" throughout your manuscript implies causality that cannot be established with your current methodology. For publication in Sustainability, you must either adopt a longitudinal design or explicitly acknowledge these limitations and reframe your findings as associative rather than causal relationships.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for bringing this observation to our attention. We acknowledge these limitations and have included them in the limitations section. Furthermore, we have reformulated the findings and described them as associative relationships. (Please review the text highlighted in yellow in the abstract, throughout the document, in the findings, and in the limitations).

 

Observation 2. Sampling and Generalizability Issues: Your sample of 296 consumers from Antofagasta, Chile, represents a significant limitation to the external validity of your findings. The geographic and demographic restrictions (60.1% male, average age 25 years) severely limit the generalizability of your results beyond this specific context. The justification for focusing exclusively on this region is insufficient, particularly given that your conclusions are presented as broadly applicable to mobile phone service consumers.

Response 2.

• Dear reviewer, the study was conducted in the Antofagasta Region of Chile. It collected 320 surveys, of which 24 were excluded due to outliers (23 of these 24 surveys were from women). Therefore, the sample is predominantly male.
• The sample size was calculated using the GPower program, which calculates the sample size for correlational studies. Applying a 95% confidence level, the calculated sample size was 320 surveys.
• Regarding the geographic location, the study was conducted in the Antofagasta Region, the main city in the northern part of the country. Therefore, the results are not generalizable to the entire country and only reflect the reality of northern Chile.
• To address these weaknesses, we have included corrections in the methodology and limitations section. (See text highlighted in yellow).

 

Observation 3. Theoretical Contribution and Integration: The manuscript lacks a substantial theoretical contribution beyond confirming existing relationships documented in prior literature. Your claim that the simultaneous integration of Brand Image and Brand Love as mediators represents a novel contribution is insufficient, as both variables are already recognized as mediators in similar contexts. More critically, the integration with sustainability themes, central to this journal, is superficial and requires significant strengthening.

Response 3. Dear reviewer, thank you for bringing this deficiency to our attention. We have strengthened the contribution and further substantiated the theoretical relevance of the study (please review the text highlighted in yellow in the implications).

 

Observation 4. Statistical and Analytical:  Concerns Several technical issues require attention:

• Your SRMR value of 0.08 is at the threshold of acceptability, suggesting potential model misspecification that is not adequately discussed
• The Harman's single-factor test alone is insufficient to address common method bias concerns
• The elimination of three items (BLv4, BLv6, BIm6) during analysis raises questions about content validity and potential data overfitting
• Additional model fit indices should be reported and discussed.

Response 4. Dear reviewer, thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have included the results of NFI = 0.91 and RMS_theta = 0.11 to further support the model's validity. (Please review the text highlighted in yellow on lines 425 to 434).

Regarding the removal of items BLv4, BLv6, and BIm6, we would like to clarify that their exclusion does not compromise the content validity or conceptual integrity of the constructs. Brand Love was originally measured using nine items and Brand Image using six items, which provides sufficient redundancy and theoretical coverage even after removing the items with low loadings. The final scales still include multiple indicators that adequately represent each dimension, and both constructs maintained high levels of internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity after refinement. Following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2019) and Henseler et al. (2016), the removal of items with weak psychometric performance is considered an acceptable and often necessary step in PLS-SEM to improve measurement quality while preserving the theoretical essence of the constructs.

 

Observation 5. Discussion and Implications: Your discussion inadequately addresses the theoretical implications of your key finding that CSR does not directly influence Brand Loyalty. This counterintuitive result contradicts substantial prior research and deserves more thorough examination. Furthermore, the implications for sustainability practice and theory are underdeveloped, which is particularly concerning for a journal focused on sustainability issues.

Response 5. Dear reviewer, thank you very much for this observation. Our research group has strengthened the discussion and implications. (Please review the text highlighted in yellow.)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzed the complexity of the relationships between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Brand Loyalty (BLy) among consumers of mobile phone services, particularly examining how Brand Image (BIm) and Brand Love (BLv) act as mediating factors in this dynamic.

The research intention is quite original in the context of the mobile telephony industry. Research in CSR and its impact on corporate image is conducted quite frequently. What distinguishes the authors' approach is the separation of image into 3 components: loyalty, image, and love. This brings a new contribution to research on the importance of sustainable development in enterprises. I therefore assess the originality of the research positively.

The literature review could be deeper and more related to the specifics of mobile phones - this is a product that is interesting from a marketing perspective and widely described. I suggest expanding this section, especially in the context of the research hypotheses being posed.

The survey research methodology is appropriately selected for the phenomenon being studied. The use of structural equation modeling allows for the simultaneous examination of the impact of different variables. Very good methodological level. However, I suggest better explaining the sample selection and the scope of the survey. This has been done superficially. Why is the sample representative? How do these studies relate to the 3 main variables and CSR?

The graphic material is correctly prepared and included in the work. I have no comments in this regard.

The conclusions are consistent with the research results and contain the most important elements and implications.

However, the discussion requires improvement. It must relate more to previous studies. It must also demonstrate the originality of the research and its contribution to sustainable development. This is definitely insufficient.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2.

On behalf of our research group, we appreciate all the observations you made. We are confident that these will help improve our research. Our research group has addressed all of your requests, and to facilitate their identification, we have highlighted the corrections in green. Below, we describe the observations and their respective corrections.

Observation 1. The literature review could be deeper and more related to the specifics of mobile phones - this is a product that is interesting from a marketing perspective and widely described. I suggest expanding this section, especially in the context of the research hypotheses being posed.

Response 1. Dear reviewer, thank you very much for this observation. We have corrected what you requested (Please review the text in green on lines 191 to 200).

 

Observation 2. I suggest better explaining the sample selection and the scope of the survey. This has been done superficially. Why is the sample representative?

Response 2. Dear reviewer, this observation was also determined by reviewer 1. Therefore, you will find it highlighted in yellow on lines 318 to 323.

 

Observation 3. The discussion requires improvement. It must relate more to previous studies. It must also demonstrate the originality of the research and its contribution to sustainable development. This is definitely insufficient.

Response 3. Dear reviewer, this observation was also developed by Reviewer 1. Therefore, you will find the correction highlighted in yellow on lines 471 to 481 and also on lines 527 to 533.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review this research. Please see below:

1. Please reduce the similarity in the article, the article shows high percentage of similarity.
2. Please remove the statistical details from the abstract and report only key results. Abstract is not the right place to report the statistical results.
3. Could you elaborate more on the motives behind conducting this study in Chile and why not other contexts.
4. Good literature review is developed.
5. Please attach the questionnaire you have used in English, attach the English original version to allow other researchers to replicate it.
6. In the research methodology indicate that your study is quantitative, deductive and exploratory in nature.
7. Please indicate in the limitations of the study that the non-probability sampling you have used might have some bias.
8. Please split the implications and develop two separate sections for both theoretical and practical implications.
9. In table 2, please clearly shows if the mediation was approved partially or fully or rejected.
10. It is R² not R2, please amend it.
11. Please report the CMB and Q²

All the best

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3.

Thank you very much for your feedback on our research. We have made the necessary corrections and highlighted them in turquoise to make them easier to identify. The changes are described below.

Observation 1. Please remove the statistical details from the abstract and report only key results. Abstract is not the right place to report the statistical results.

Response 1. Dear reviewer, we have corrected this observation.

 

Observation 2.  Could you elaborate more on the motives behind conducting this study in Chile and why not other contexts.

Response 2. Dear reviewer, this explanation can be found on lines 88 through 93 (Review text highlighted in turquoise)

 

Observation 3. Please attach the questionnaire you have used in English, attach the English original version to allow other researchers to replicate it.

Response 3. Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your input. We have included your request. (Reviewer Appendix B at the end of the article)

 

Observation 4.  In the research methodology indicate that your study is quantitative, deductive and exploratory in nature.

Response 4. Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your input. We have included what you requested. (Reviewer highlighted text on lines 310 and 311)

 

Observation 5. Please indicate in the limitations of the study that the non-probability sampling you have used might have some bias.

Response 5. Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your input. We have included what you requested. (Reviewer highlighted text on lines 643 and 655)

 

Observation 6. Please split the implications and develop two separate sections for both theoretical and practical implications.

Response 6. Dear reviewer, thank you for this observation. To facilitate understanding of the implications, we have separated them into three paragraphs.

 

Observation 7. In table 2, please clearly shows if the mediation was approved partially or fully or rejected.

Response 7. Dear reviewer, thank you for this observation. We have included a paragraph explaining the measurement approval process. (See the text highlighted in turquoise in Table 4).

 

Observation 8.  It is R2 not R2, please amend it.

Response 8. Dear reviewer, we have corrected this error.

 

Observation 9. Please report the CMB and Q2

Response 9. Dear reviewer, we have corrected the requested information. We have included an explanation stating that all VIF values ​​were below the conservative cutoff of 3.3 (CSR = 1.81; BIm = 2.91; BLv = 2.79; BLy = 3.22), indicating that CMB is unlikely to pose a significant threat to the validity of the results. (See the text highlighted in turquoise in Table 2)