Sustainability Claims and Perceived Product Quality: The Moderating Role of Brand CSR

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The sustainable product of the study is a fictional laundry detergent brand, however, the literature review include a wide range of different types of products, for example, organic food products, which are very different in concept from detergent. Might want to narrow down the literature product brand review scope to commodities.
2. Please explain whether sustainable product equates to organic products.
3. Increase literature review reference for H1.
4. Unify 'firm CSR'..,etc. all to 'Brand CSR.'
5. Please make sure whether the reference style is the correct style required by the journal.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1.

 

We thank you for your supportive comments. Below you find our replies.

 

• The sustainable product of the study is a fictional laundry detergent brand, however, the literature review include a wide range of different types of products, for example, organic food products, which are very different in concept from detergent. Might want to narrow down the literature product brand review scope to commodities.

 

We have considered this, but the literature has a strong focus on food products. We though now clearly show that we study a non-food product.

 

• Please explain whether sustainable product equates to organic products.

 

We have added that organic products are a very prevalent form of sustainable products. Moreover, research shows that consumers buying organic and other sustainable products are rather similar (e.g. Verhoef and Van Doorn 2016).

 

• Increase literature review reference for H1.

 

We have extended the literature review.

 

• Unify 'firm CSR'..,etc. all to 'Brand CSR.'

 

We have done this.

 

• Please make sure whether the reference style is the correct style required by the journal.

 

We have checked this.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper examines the effects of sustainability claims on product quality, and the moderating role of CSR. It is a tight and neat paper, with a clear objective on a relevant and timely topic.

I have a few suggestions that will hopefully help to strengthen this paper:

The main effect that this paper examines is a relation between sustainability claims and perceived product quality. Yet, I wonder if the emphasis on overall quality is justified. There are studies which have shown effects of product sustainability more specifically on product strength (e.g., Lin & Chang 2012), whereas such sustainable products are valued better in terms of gentleness (Brough et al., 2016; Luchs et al., 2010). Overall quality may be based more on strength or gentleness considerations, depending on situation or person. So, basically, I question whether sustainability always has a negative effect on perceived quality, and propose that it may not have this effect when gentleness considerations are relevant. I would urge the authors to consider this possibility, and either empirically examine this in a new data collection or discuss it in the general discussion of the paper.

In the introduction of your prior work, Van Doorn and Verhoef (2011), you emphasize the negative quality associations with sustainable products, without indicating that this prior study found that this holds for vice products (but not for virtue products). I think this deserves mentioning. The relation between sustainability and quality is not always negative, but your current paper gives the suggestion that it is.

The introduction mentions very briefly that the study is relevant because brands have been blamed for green washing. Can you please elaborate a bit more on this point, in order to make the relevance of the study more clear.

Your experiment examines the effects of sustainability claims and CSR in the context of a new product introduction (anti-wrinkle laundry detergent). Can you reflect on whether this context may affect results, in the general discussion. The context is one of a high-tech new product, with a utilitarian benefit, which may imply that strength associations are relevant. A potential alternative underlying process, in contrast to the one you propose, relates to perceived congruency / fit. A sustainability label on a utilitarian product with a technology-related benefit may be perceived as incongruent (hence lower perceived quality). If the brand has a consistent CSR track record, this incongruency is solved (hence higher perceived quality).

The process model (page 6) is described as moderated mediation. One would thus expect an IV, Mediator, Moderator, and DV. Yet, the description of the model (last line page 6 and beginning of page 7) indicates only three variables, not four. It is thus unclear how the model is specified exactly. Please describe in more detail, and include a conceptual model in the paper to visualize. Do you expect and test moderation on the IV to M path or on the M to DV path? Details and discussion of what results imply would be helpful.

Figure 2 would be more insightful if you switch the axis and lines, such that perceived brand CSR (a continues variable) is represented on the (continues) X-axis, and sustainability label (a dichotomous variable) is represented by two separate lines. Also ensure that labelling is consistent and clear. In this figure, you plot perceived brand CSR, not the manipulated brand CSR.

When describing the results shown in Figure 2, please provide test statistics.

When describing the ANOVA results, provide means and simple effects.

 

Minor comments:

• The abstract is very succinct (as is the rest of the paper). Please provide some details of the experiment in the abstract.
• At two points in the paper (page 3 and 5), it is mentioned that CSR can “mitigate or at least reduce” the negative quality effects. Yet, the meaning of “mitigate” is to reduce, so this appears to be a tautology.
• The introduction already provides the outcomes of the experiment. I realize this is a matter of taste, but I would prefer to end the introduction with research questions rather than outcomes.
• When discussing the manipulation check, please mention whether the interaction effect is nonsignificant.
• Discussion of limitations is very succinct – please elaborate.
• You may want to consider ending the paper with a conclusions section (to end on a positive note).

 

References

Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 568-580.

Lin, Y. C., & Chang, C.-c. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125-134.

Luchs, M. G., Walker Naylor, R., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18-31.

 

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2

 

Thank you for your supportive comments. Below you find our replies.

 

The main effect that this paper examines is a relation between sustainability claims and perceived product quality. Yet, I wonder if the emphasis on overall quality is justified. There are studies which have shown effects of product sustainability more specifically on product strength (e.g., Lin & Chang 2012), whereas such sustainable products are valued better in terms of gentleness (Brough et al., 2016; Luchs et al., 2010). Overall quality may be based more on strength or gentleness considerations, depending on situation or person. So, basically, I question whether sustainability always has a negative effect on perceived quality, and propose that it may not have this effect when gentleness considerations are relevant. I would urge the authors to consider this possibility, and either empirically examine this in a new data collection or discuss it in the general discussion of the paper.

 

Reply:

We have discussed this more elaborately in the discussion of hypothesis 1 using your highly value references.

In the introduction of your prior work, Van Doorn and Verhoef (2011), you emphasize the negative quality associations with sustainable products, without indicating that this prior study found that this holds for vice products (but not for virtue products). I think this deserves mentioning. The relation between sustainability and quality is not always negative, but your current paper gives the suggestion that it is.

 

Reply:

We now acknowledge this in our discussion of hypothesis 1.

 

The introduction mentions very briefly that the study is relevant because brands have been blamed for green washing. Can you please elaborate a bit more on this point, in order to make the relevance of the study more clear.

 

Reply:

We have elaborated more on this issue. It is not the central part of our paper, but it provides a nice twist that being good (high CSR) benefits the firm as well as society.

Your experiment examines the effects of sustainability claims and CSR in the context of a new product introduction (anti-wrinkle laundry detergent). Can you reflect on whether this context may affect results, in the general discussion. The context is one of a high-tech new product, with a utilitarian benefit, which may imply that strength associations are relevant. A potential alternative underlying process, in contrast to the one you propose, relates to perceived congruency / fit. A sustainability label on a utilitarian product with a technology-related benefit may be perceived as incongruent (hence lower perceived quality). If the brand has a consistent CSR track record, this incongruency is solved (hence higher perceived quality).

 

Reply:

Thank you for this alternative explanation. We now discuss this explanation in our discussion section. This also calls for more research.

The process model (page 6) is described as moderated mediation. One would thus expect an IV, Mediator, Moderator, and DV. Yet, the description of the model (last line page 6 and beginning of page 7) indicates only three variables, not four. It is thus unclear how the model is specified exactly. Please describe in more detail, and include a conceptual model in the paper to visualize. Do you expect and test moderation on the IV to M path or on the M to DV path? Details and discussion of what results imply would be helpful.

 

Reply:

We have included a conceptual model (Figure 1) as discussed based on the hypotheses..

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify our estimation approach. We encountered an effect of the manipulation of the sustainability claim on the brand CSR perceptions. While this is conceptually not surprising, it complicates things empirically. We therefore used process model 74 to deal with this issue, using the measured levels of brand CSR perceptions instead of the manipulated ones. We show the conceptual model of this model below. This model accounts for the sustainability claim influencing both CSR perceptions and quality perceptions by incorporating brand CSR perceptions as a mediator. We clarified this approach also in the text. So far we did not show this model in the text, given that it appeared after having the data and being confronted with encountered effect of the manipulation.

Figure 2 would be more insightful if you switch the axis and lines, such that perceived brand CSR (a continues variable) is represented on the (continues) X-axis, and sustainability label (a dichotomous variable) is represented by two separate lines. Also ensure that labelling is consistent and clear. In this figure, you plot perceived brand CSR, not the manipulated brand CSR.

Reply:

We have done this.

 

 

When describing the results shown in Figure 2, please provide test statistics.

 

 

Reply:

We have discussed the results. But process model 74 does not provide test statistics, as it is a non-standard model.

We have done this.

When describing the ANOVA results, provide means and simple effects. We report the means and simple effects in Table 1. We note that these effect are influenced by the fact, that the eco manipulation also affects the CSR scores. This is the mentioned significant interaction effect between the manipulations. We therefore use the note process model to asses the effects.

 Reply:

Done. See Table 1 in paper.

Condition	N	Mean	Standard Deviation
Eco Label;   CSR	74	5,66	0,97
Eco Label; No CSR	76	5,99	0,88
No Eco Label; CSR	76	6,11	0,85
No Eco Label; No CSR	76	6,03	0,88
Total	302	5,95	0,91

 

Minor comments:

• The abstract is very succinct (as is the rest of the paper). Please provide some details of the experiment in the abstract.

 

Reply:

We have provided more details.

 

• At two points in the paper (page 3 and 5), it is mentioned that CSR can “mitigate or at least reduce” the negative quality effects. Yet, the meaning of “mitigate” is to reduce, so this appears to be a tautology.

 

Reply

We have changed this.

 

• The introduction already provides the outcomes of the experiment. I realize this is a matter of taste, but I would prefer to end the introduction with research questions rather than outcomes.
  

Reply:

This is indeed matter of taste. We have deleted it.

 

• When discussing the manipulation check, please mention whether the interaction effect is nonsignificant.

 

Reply:

Done

 

• Discussion of limitations is very succinct – please elaborate.

Reply:

The paper is focused and short, we though have elaborated a bit more.

 

• You may want to consider ending the paper with a conclusions section (to end on a positive note).

 

Reply:

We now end with a short conclusion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have provided feedback through comments in the pdf file containing the revised manuscript. Mostly these are minor points that I stumbled across when reading your paper.

There is, however, one main issue. As you will see from the comments, table 1 has confused me greatly. It is unclear which variable is depicted in this table. Comparing the numbers to the text, it would appear that the table contains means for perceived quality, but if that is the case it seems that the pattern of results is inconsistent with the pattern shown in Figure 3. This would cast doubt on the results of the robustness check.

For me, the robustness check is essential in showing that the pattern of results is consistent and valid. Apologies for bringing this up now - I somehow overlooked this in the previous version, but as it is a crucial point in your argumentation, it should be addressed.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you again for your very constructive comments. We have responded to your comments in the revision. We understand the concerns with regard to Table 1. We provide more information and apologize that Table 1 was put in the wrong place in the paper. It is not presented in the robustness check section.

We hope you are satisfied with the revision.

In the revision we clearly show the changes using track changes in Word.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for responding to my feedback!