ESG Strategies in Educational Quality Management: An Empirical Study on Fostering Student Loyalty and Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article under review employs a structural equation model to explore the relationship between environmental, social, and governance principles and institutional loyalty among a sample of university students. In principle, this article is excellent. It is clearly written and in high-quality English. The introduction is comprehensive and helps readers from diverse backgrounds to engage smoothly with the topics discussed. The research framework is explained in detail, and all hypotheses are well-justified and entirely reasonable.

The questionnaire is carefully designed, and respondents are selected through a meticulously planned sampling strategy—something rare these days—which allows the results to be reliably supported. The methodology is appropriate, and the empirical strategy is, overall, consistent with the study’s objectives. The conclusions align with the literature presented and the results obtained.

Nevertheless, I have two observations (one minor and one major) that prevent me from recommending the acceptance of this article in its current form.

Minor observation: I have the impression that paragraphs 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 are somewhat too similar and redundant. While well-written, they come across as slightly repetitive. If you agree, I believe readers would benefit from these subsections being merged and summarised. The same applies to subsections 4.1 and 4.4.

Major observation: I have serious doubts about the coefficients presented in Table 5. What do they represent? Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding something, but I see two nominal variables with unordered categories (location and college) and one ordinal variable (academic year), yet only a single coefficient is reported. If this is because these variables were treated as numerical/continuous rather than categorical, this would be a significant error, as the coefficient would be meaningless for the unordered variables and, in the case of the ordinal variable, would imply an (unlikely) linear step between levels.

If I am correct, I urge you to correct this by treating all these variables as factors and specifying the baseline category, even for dichotomous variables (gender, university type, and academic system). If I am mistaken, I kindly ask you to clarify how the coefficients in the table should be interpreted within the context of your study.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We are especially grateful for the recognition of the article’s structure, clarity, empirical methodology, and contribution to the literature on ESG integration and student loyalty in higher education. Below, we provide our responses to the reviewer's specific observations:

Minor Observation:

"Paragraphs 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 are somewhat too similar and redundant… The same applies to subsections 4.1 and 4.4."

Response: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. Upon review, we agree that there is some conceptual overlap among Sections 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, as well as between Sections 4.1 and 4.4. In response, we have revised the manuscript as follows:

• Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 have been merged into a new subsection titled "2.3 Integrating Service Quality, ESG Practices, and Emotional Experience in Higher Education," which streamlines key concepts and eliminates redundancy while preserving conceptual clarity.
• Similarly, we have merged Sections 4.1 and 4.4 into a new subsection titled "4.1 Sampling and Survey Implementation" to simplify the presentation and remove repetition.

These changes aim to improve readability and coherence, while retaining the depth of literature review and methodological rigor.

Major Observation:

"I have serious doubts about the coefficients presented in Table 5... If this is because these variables were treated as numerical/continuous rather than categorical, this would be a significant error..."

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important issue. We agree that treating nominal variables as continuous would be inappropriate and could mislead interpretation. We sincerely apologize for the lack of clarity in the original manuscript.

To clarify:

• In the revised analysis, we have re-specified all nominal variables (e.g., location and college) and ordinal variables (e.g., academic year) as categorical factors in the regression model.
• We have now included dummy variables for each category, with clearly defined baseline groups indicated in the updated Table 5.
• We have revised the regression model specification using proper factor encoding and rerun the analysis accordingly.

The revised coefficients and their interpretations are now consistent with the appropriate treatment of categorical predictors. We have updated Table 5 in the manuscript and clarified the method and rationale in the "Data Analysis" section to avoid confusion for future readers.

We thank the reviewer again for identifying this methodological issue and helping us improve the robustness of our study.

Sincerely,

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ESG Strategies in Educational Quality Management - An Empirical Study on Fostering Student Loyalty and Sustainability

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3572682

The study innovatively addresses the integration of ESG principles into educational quality management systems, offering a robust theoretical framework that combines the SERVQUAL model with the incorporation of sustainability practices. The use of an empirical approach based on SEM and a large sample of students provides valuable evidence on how these strategies can foster student loyalty and align educational institutions with the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the manuscript suffers from issues related to writing and organization; the formulation of hypotheses and the methodological description lack the necessary clarity for the reader to fully understand the research process. It is recommended to review the internal coherence of the document, refine the English writing, and strengthen the theoretical justification of the instruments and procedures used.

Introduction:

• Deepen the study’s justification by providing specific theoretical and empirical background. For example, it is recommended to include a recent review of research addressing the integration of ESG principles in the educational field, citing studies published within the last five years.
• Explicitly specify the study’s motivation: What gaps in the literature are intended to be closed, and what is the practical relevance of integrating ESG in educational quality management?
• Clearly articulate the objectives in a precise manner, differentiating between a general objective and specific objectives. For example: "The general objective is to evaluate the impact of ESG practices on student loyalty, while the specific objectives include analyzing the relationship between service quality, emotional experience, and behavioral intentions."
• Formulate the hypotheses concisely and coherently, presenting them in a structured format that allows the expected relationship between variables to be easily identified (e.g., H1: Service quality positively influences emotional experience; H2: Emotional experience mediates the relationship between service quality and student loyalty; etc.).

Methodology:

• Provide a detailed description of the research design, specifying whether it is a cross-sectional, descriptive, correlational, or experimental study.
• Include a thorough explanation of the sampling process: define the type of sampling used (e.g., stratified random sampling), the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and justify the sample size based on methodological studies or recommendations.
• Detail the validation of the measurement instruments: indicate whether a pilot test was conducted, describe reliability indices (such as Cronbach’s α), and explain how validity was assessed (e.g., through confirmatory factor analysis).
• Include an exhaustive description of the analysis procedures, especially regarding the use of SEM. Specify the fit criteria adopted (e.g., CFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.08), the statistical tool used (such as AMOS or LISREL), and the methods for evaluating mediating effects (e.g., using Bootstrap).

Results:

• Present the findings in a more visual and organized manner by incorporating graphics (such as path diagrams or histograms) and tables summarizing the key results from the descriptive analysis, CFA, SEM, and mediation tests.
• Organize the presentation of results following the order of the hypotheses, clearly highlighting which ones were confirmed and which were not.
• Avoid redundancies in the data description; for instance, summarize the relevant findings in concise paragraphs and use footnotes or legends in tables to clarify important points.

Discussion: The discussion section is notably brief compared to the other sections of the manuscript, resulting in a superficial treatment of the findings. Currently, it relies solely on five citations [7, 8, 10, 24, 35], which limits the depth of critical analysis and comparison with the existing literature. It is essential to expand this section to incorporate additional references and provide a detailed discussion of how the results align or differ from previous studies, as well as to explore possible explanations for unexpected findings. A more robust discussion would better contextualize the theoretical and practical implications, providing the reader with a comprehensive view of the impact of the studied variables while critically highlighting the strengths and limitations of the work.

• Specifically compare the obtained results with previous studies, citing concrete examples and explaining the similarities or differences found.
• Conduct a critical analysis that discusses possible explanations for unexpected findings, as well as the theoretical and practical implications of the results.
• Deepen the discussion on the mediating role of emotional experience, detailing how this variable influences the relationship between service quality and behavioral intentions, and proposing underlying mechanisms or processes supported by the literature.
• indicate the study’s limitations (e.g., sampling limitations, potential measurement biases, etc.) and suggest specific measures to overcome them in future research.

Conclusions:

• Align the conclusions with the results obtained, summarizing clearly and concisely the most relevant findings and their practical and theoretical significance.
• Highlight the practical implications of the study, offering concrete recommendations for educational institutions to effectively integrate ESG practices into their quality management systems.
• Propose specific future research lines, such as exploring other moderating variables or extending the research to different educational contexts, which would allow for a deeper exploration of the impact of ESG practices on student loyalty.

These specific recommendations will help ensure that the manuscript not only has a more robust and coherent structure but also offers greater clarity and depth in the presentation and discussion of its objectives, hypotheses, and findings.

 

Author Response

Author's Response to Reviewer 2

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the thoughtful, detailed, and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and made substantial revisions to address the issues raised. Below are our point-by-point responses:

Comment 1:

This work tries to describe or discover (it is not clear) the relationships between service quality, emotional experience, ESG practices, and behavioral intention. Its objective is very interesting. However, it should be organized to show coherence in the writing and a common thread between the analyses...

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to improve the logical flow and coherence between sections. We clarified that our study is a confirmatory investigation, grounded in existing theory and prior research (SERVQUAL, TPB, ESG), not exploratory. Accordingly, we restructured the literature review and added a new subsection (Section 2.5: Theoretical Model Development) to explain how our research model was conceived from previous studies and theoretical frameworks. This section now bridges the theory and the hypotheses, clearly aligning the conceptual model with the instrument and analysis.

Comment 2:

Section 2.4 and 2.5 should be merged into a single section.

Response: We agree. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 have been merged and rewritten as a new subsection titled “2.3 Integration of Service Quality, ESG Practices, and Emotional Experience in Higher Education”, to reduce redundancy and improve clarity. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 3:

Figure 1 should be conclusion of this research... not be placed before analyzing data... Also, maybe simplify the hypotheses into one general statement...

Response: We appreciate this insightful observation. However, since we adopted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach, the theoretical model must be stated in advance for validation. We now clearly state in the methodology and model development sections that this study uses a confirmatory rather than exploratory approach, and that Figure 1 represents the hypothesized model that is tested, not concluded. Nonetheless, to improve clarity, we have more explicitly labeled Figure 1 as a “hypothesized research model.”

Comment 4:

I highly suggest the creation of a new section (between sections 2 and 3) to explain in detail how your model is conceived...

Response: Done. We added Section 2.5 Theoretical Model Development, where we clearly explain the logic and theoretical basis for model construction. This section ties the SERVQUAL model, emotional loyalty theory (Oliver, 1999), and ESG constructs together. This reorganization ensures that our analytical path is transparent and logically sound, avoiding any impression of forcing the conclusion.

Comment 5:

How many questions are in the instrument? How many in each section? Show the instrument and relate it to the theoretical frameworks.

Response: We added a detailed explanation of the questionnaire in Section 4.2, including the number of items per construct:

• Service Quality: 6 items (based on SERVQUAL)
• ESG Practices: 6 items (based on ESG indicators by Dyllick & Muff, 2016)
• Emotional Experience: 6 items (based on Oliver, 1999)
• Behavioral Intentions: 6 items (based on TPB and loyalty literature)

Comment 6:

Sections 4.3 and 4.5 are similar. One of them should be removed.

Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have now merged Sections 4.3 and 4.5 into a unified methodology section titled “4.3 Questionnaire Administration and Data Collection” to remove redundancy and streamline explanation.

Comment 7:

Section 5.5 describes a completely different study... clarify R² and variable use.

Response: Thank you for this crucial point. We have now restructured Section 5.5, clearly indicating that this regression analysis is part of the same study and explains the relationships between key constructs using hierarchical regression to supplement SEM results. All categorical variables are now treated as dummy variables (see Revised Table 5, updated with reference groups and explanatory notes). We also provided justifications for the R² values and clarified the purpose of regression vs. SEM in the discussion.

Comment 8:

Section 6 (Discussion) should be extended to compare this work to other works doing similar analysis...

Response: We agree and have significantly extended Section 6 (Discussion) to include comparisons with other empirical studies using ESG frameworks and SEM/CFA in educational settings. This now better positions our study in the broader academic context.

Comment 9:

Abstract claims practical recommendations, but they are only briefly stated...

Response: We revised the Recommendations subsection in Section 6.1 to provide Practical Implications, and Section 6.2 to provide Research Implications and Future Directions for university administrators. These are now aligned with our empirical findings and grouped according to:

• Service Quality Improvement
• ESG Implementation Strategy
• Tailored Interventions by Demographic Segment

The abstract has also been updated to reflect the expanded practical implications.

We again thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback, which significantly improved the manuscript’s coherence, rigor, and impact.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work tries to describe or discover (it is not clear) the relationships between service quality, emotional experience, ESG practices, and behavioral intention. Its objetive is very interesting. However, it should be organized to show coherence in the writing and a common thread between the analyses. It's not necessary to generate numerous numerical analyses. It's only necessary to show those that support what you want to explore. This will avoid going back and forth between unhelpful information once a possible and plausible conclusion has been reached.

Section 2.4 and 2.5 should be merged into a single section.

Figure 1 should be conclusion of this research. This means that it cannot be placed before analyzing data because these influences have not been discovered yet. Additionally to this, maybe, to simplify, there should be only one hypothesis similar to "Service quality, Emotional experience, ESG practices, and Behavioral intention influence each other in some way". Although, I understand that you are using a Confirmatory Factor Analysis instead of an Exploratory Factor Analysis. This is very important to state somewhere in your text because you are not trying to discover a new model, you are trying to discover if the model that you have in mind fits data. Many models can fit data, that does not mean that such a model can be generalized.

If authors want to continue this path, I highly suggest the creation of a new section (between sections 2 and 3) to explain in detail how your model is conceived based on the theoretical frameworks you mention. I think all the information is in there, but it has to be reorganized to create a solid theoretical base. And then, explain in detail how you built the questionnaire trying to collect data to analyze your model. This will be very useful to avoid giving the impression that this work is leaded/forced to a specific conclusion. 

How many questions are in the instrument? How many questions each section has? Authors should show this instrument and it would be great to have a specification on how each item is related to each of the "theoretical frameworks and previous research" that they mention.

Sections 4.3 and 4.5 are similar. One of them should be removed. 

Section 5.5 describes a completely different study. It also states that this regression shows relationships between the variables of the other study, however, they are used as independent variables in the regression. Additionally, authors should explain R2 low values. It seems that this section is the one that tests the hypothesis, so the construction of the model. So, the confirmatory analysis is not needed maybe?

Section 6 (discussion) should be extended to compare this work to other works doing similar analysis (not to theoretical frameworks but to research works). 

Abstract says "Practical recommendations are provided for educational institution managers to optimize service quality, advance sustainability objectives, and foster long-term institutional success and social impact" however, these recommendations are confined in a single general paragraph (lines 714 - 723). 

Author Response

Author’s Response to Reviewer Comments

Manuscript Title: ESG Strategies in Educational Quality Management - An Empirical Study on Fostering Student Loyalty and Sustainability

Reviewer’s General Comment:

The article presents a valuable perspective on how ESG principles can shape students' perceptions of university responsibility and loyalty. I appreciate the empirical depth and conceptual relevance of the topic. Below, I provide several suggestions to further enhance the clarity and structure of the manuscript.

Presentation Aspects

Comment 1: The Introduction section could benefit if it includes a brief presentation of the entire article’s contents.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to provide a brief overview of the paper’s structure, summarizing the research objectives, methodology, key findings, and structure of the article.

Comment 2: Please discuss how the literature regards the real value that society receives from such ESG practices, not just student loyalty.

Response: This is a critical point. We have now extended the Introduction and Discussion sections to include references to literature that emphasizes the social impact of ESG integration in higher education. This includes how these practices enhance societal outcomes such as civic engagement, sustainability awareness, and ethical leadership—aligning university efforts with broader social needs, beyond internal loyalty metrics.

Content Improvements

Comment 3: In the Introduction, remark what kind of data and their origin are the basis of the analysis (where they are coming from?)

Response: We have now included in the Introduction a statement specifying that the data were collected from 462 students enrolled in multiple universities across different regions in Taiwan, using stratified random sampling. This provides early clarity on the data’s origin and relevance.

Comment 4: Section 2 is quite extensive and not clearly chained; a graphical representation of the relation among subsections may be helpful.

Response: We agree and have added a graphical figure in Section 2.6 titled “Theoretical Model Development” to visually represent the theoretical logic among SERVQUAL, ESG, emotional experience, and behavioral intentions. This visual framework helps readers understand how the literature streams are interconnected and how they lead to hypothesis development.

Comment 5: Please provide a more valuable figure caption to the research model.

Response: The figure caption has been revised to clearly explain the purpose of the figure. It now reads: “Figure 1. Conceptual framework illustrating hypothesized relationships among service quality, ESG practices, emotional experience, and behavioral intentions in the context of higher education.”

Comment 6: Is there valuable evidence about the positive relations settled by the hypotheses? Please include a brief discussion about deviations in the discussion.

Response: Thank you. We have expanded the Discussion section to include a brief reflection on potential deviations and variability in results, especially noting how discipline (e.g., engineering) and academic seniority affect student responses. This strengthens our acknowledgment of the contextual limitations and offers pathways for future research.

Comment 7: Can the authors provide the entire questionnaire? Possibly in an appendix.

Response: Yes. We have now included the complete English version of the questionnaire in Appendix A for transparency and replication purposes.

Comment 8: I recommend inserting a figure summarizing the statistical methods implemented.

Response: We appreciate this practical suggestion. We have added Figure 2, a flowchart summarizing the data analysis procedure—from questionnaire distribution and validity testing to CFA, SEM, and hierarchical regression. This visual guide supports less statistically-inclined readers.

Format Style and Technical

Comment 9: Please adapt all tables to the journal guidelines (e.g., Table 2).

Response: All tables have now been reformatted according to the journal’s style guide, including the use of consistent headings, spacing, font, and notation (e.g., significance levels and footnotes).

Comment 10: Section 8 (Patents) is unclear—please explain or remove if irrelevant.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Section 8 was auto-generated during template use and was not applicable to our study. It has now been removed.

Comment 11: Table 5 is a continued table—please present it in one complete location.

Response: We have reformatted Table 5 to appear fully in one location in the revised manuscript, ensuring better readability and coherence.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful and constructive comments, which have helped improve the clarity, structure, and scholarly impact of our manuscript. All suggestions have been addressed and incorporated into the revised submission.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author’s Response to Reviewer Comments

Manuscript Title: ESG Strategies in Educational Quality Management - An Empirical Study on Fostering Student Loyalty and Sustainability

Reviewer’s General Comment:

The article presents a valuable perspective on how ESG principles can shape students' perceptions of university responsibility and loyalty. I appreciate the empirical depth and conceptual relevance of the topic. Below, I provide several suggestions to further enhance the clarity and structure of the manuscript.

Presentation Aspects

Comment 1: The Introduction section could benefit if it includes a brief presentation of the entire article’s contents.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to provide a brief overview of the paper’s structure, summarizing the research objectives, methodology, key findings, and structure of the article.

Comment 2: Please discuss how the literature regards the real value that society receives from such ESG practices, not just student loyalty.

Response: This is a critical point. We have now extended the Introduction and Discussion sections to include references to literature that emphasizes the social impact of ESG integration in higher education. This includes how these practices enhance societal outcomes such as civic engagement, sustainability awareness, and ethical leadership—aligning university efforts with broader social needs, beyond internal loyalty metrics.

Content Improvements

Comment 3: In the Introduction, remark what kind of data and their origin are the basis of the analysis (where they are coming from?)

Response: We have now included in the Introduction a statement specifying that the data were collected from 462 students enrolled in multiple universities across different regions in Taiwan, using stratified random sampling. This provides early clarity on the data’s origin and relevance.

Comment 4: Section 2 is quite extensive and not clearly chained; a graphical representation of the relation among subsections may be helpful.

Response: We agree and have added a graphical figure in Section 2.6 titled “Theoretical Model Development” to visually represent the theoretical logic among SERVQUAL, ESG, emotional experience, and behavioral intentions. This visual framework helps readers understand how the literature streams are interconnected and how they lead to hypothesis development.

Comment 5: Please provide a more valuable figure caption to the research model.

Response: The figure caption has been revised to clearly explain the purpose of the figure. It now reads: “Figure 1. Conceptual framework illustrating hypothesized relationships among service quality, ESG practices, emotional experience, and behavioral intentions in the context of higher education.”

Comment 6: Is there valuable evidence about the positive relations settled by the hypotheses? Please include a brief discussion about deviations in the discussion.

Response: Thank you. We have expanded the Discussion section to include a brief reflection on potential deviations and variability in results, especially noting how discipline (e.g., engineering) and academic seniority affect student responses. This strengthens our acknowledgment of the contextual limitations and offers pathways for future research.

Comment 7: Can the authors provide the entire questionnaire? Possibly in an appendix.

Response: Yes. We have now included the complete English version of the questionnaire in Appendix A for transparency and replication purposes.

Comment 8: I recommend inserting a figure summarizing the statistical methods implemented.

Response: We appreciate this practical suggestion. We have added Figure 2, a flowchart summarizing the data analysis procedure—from questionnaire distribution and validity testing to CFA, SEM, and hierarchical regression. This visual guide supports less statistically-inclined readers.

Format Style and Technical

Comment 9: Please adapt all tables to the journal guidelines (e.g., Table 2).

Response: All tables have now been reformatted according to the journal’s style guide, including the use of consistent headings, spacing, font, and notation (e.g., significance levels and footnotes).

Comment 10: Section 8 (Patents) is unclear—please explain or remove if irrelevant.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Section 8 was auto-generated during template use and was not applicable to our study. It has now been removed.

Comment 11: Table 5 is a continued table—please present it in one complete location.

Response: We have reformatted Table 5 to appear fully in one location in the revised manuscript, ensuring better readability and coherence.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful and constructive comments, which have helped improve the clarity, structure, and scholarly impact of our manuscript. All suggestions have been addressed and incorporated into the revised submission.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their commitment in taking on board, understanding, and implementing my comments. I am convinced that the readability of the article has now been greatly improved. Furthermore, the correction of the error regarding the classification of the variables was essential and has now been carried out correctly. I would also like to point out a small formatting error in the alignment of the rows under columns M4, M5, and M6 in Table 5. I remain of the opinion that this is a good and interesting article, the result of a well-designed study, which also holds particular relevance in the current debate on the social responsibility of universities. I strongly recommend its publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the insightful comments and affirmation of our revisions. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we have corrected the minor row alignment issue in Table 5, especially in columns M4 to M6, to ensure consistency and readability. All statistical values are now properly aligned to their corresponding variables. We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail and thoughtful recommendation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can see that some comments were integrated into the paper. However, I can't find the authors' response, so I can't understand the reason why other comments (some important) weren't integrated. For example:

- Figure 1 is still a conclusion presented as a hypothesis, but it's not clear how the relationships shown there were discovered.
- The above is related to there being too many hypotheses. There should be only one general one. The objective of this research should be to find the relationships, not test them. This is because for the first element, the statistics presented do the work. For the second, a large theoretical foundation must be generated that does not appear yet in the document.
- The practical recommendations mentioned in the abstract are still not clear in the text. A list of these recommendations would be helpful.

Although the statistical study lacks a common thread, the comments I mention above shouldn't be difficult to address with relatively minor modifications to the text.

Author Response

Comment 1: Figure 1 is still a conclusion presented as a hypothesis, but it's not clear how the relationships shown there were discovered.

Response: We appreciate this insightful observation. We have now clarified in Section 2.5 (Theoretical Model Development) that the proposed research model is not an empirical conclusion but a hypothesized framework based on an extensive literature review. The conceptual model was built upon SERVQUAL theory, ESG-related literature, and loyalty theory. We also emphasize that the model was tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), which, by nature, require a theoretical model to be hypothesized prior to analysis. We have modified the figure caption of Figure 1 to clearly label it as a "Conceptual Framework" rather than a conclusive result.

Comment 2: There are too many hypotheses. There should be only one general one. The objective of this research should be to find the relationships, not test them. This is because for the first element, the statistics presented do the work. For the second, a large theoretical foundation must be generated that does not appear yet in the document.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. While our methodology follows a confirmatory approach (CFA/SEM), which requires hypotheses to be explicitly tested, we understand the need for clarity and coherence. Therefore:

1. We retained the seven hypotheses (H1–H7) to maintain alignment with the SEM framework, but we consolidated their presentation in Section 3.2, highlighting that H1–H5 are direct relationships and H6–H7 test mediation effects through emotional experience.
2. To address the concern regarding insufficient theoretical grounding, we expanded Sections 2.3 to 2.5 to more clearly explain the conceptual rationale behind each proposed relationship, citing recent studies and theoretical support.
3. In the introduction, we added an explicit statement to clarify that this study uses a confirmatory (not exploratory) statistical approach to test a model derived from existing literature, not to discover new relationships inductively.

Comment 3: The practical recommendations mentioned in the abstract are still not clear in the text. A list of these recommendations would be helpful.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. In response, we have revised Section 6.1 (Practical Implications) to provide a clear, itemized list of practical recommendations derived from the empirical findings. These are tailored for university administrators to strengthen service quality and ESG practices, segmented by student demographic differences (e.g., by major, enrollment type, academic year). The revised text now reads:

• Enhance service quality from the user perspective.
• Integrate ESG into the student journey
• Leverage emotional engagement mechanisms.
• Align ESG with institutional strategy and branding.

We also summarized these recommendations in a bulleted format in the conclusion for reader clarity.

We are deeply grateful for Reviewer 2’s thoughtful critique. We believe the current version of the manuscript more clearly presents the theoretical foundation, clarifies the role of hypotheses under a CFA/SEM framework, and now offers practical, actionable recommendations aligned with the study’s findings.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf