Disentangling Consumers’ CSR Knowledge Types and Effects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is a consumer-oriented analysis of CSR. The authors aimed to typify and distinguish between consumers' knowledge of CSR.
The manuscript follows a logical and journal-friendly flow.
A demanding, thorough literature analysis with a good critical approach is the first part of the manuscript.
The research is methodologically sophisticated and rigorous. The sample making procedure, the purpose and the circumstances of the research have been described in sufficient detail. The presentation of the results follows a logical principle, appropriate to the research objectives and suitable for testing the hypotheses.
Limitations of the research and ideas for the continuation of the research are also presented in adequate detail.  
For its part, I have been able to review a highly reader-friendly and demanding work, which I believe presents results and conclusions that are relevant to practice in addition to its theoretical implications.
I would suggest highlighting the specific recommendations for practitioners in terms of conclusions, and presenting them separately in the summary of the research.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents consumers' knowledge to CSR in a consumer ethic. I found the topic to be timely and interesting. My comments and questions are as follows.

On pages 3-4, the authors should provide a more in-depth rationale for what is done empirically and conceptually. Specifically, with the plethora of factors that may affect CSR knowledge, what makes CSR important and relevant to examine? I also want to ask you to add a theoretical background to this paper. 

On pages 6-7, I'd suggest that the authors could benefit from adding some CSR to the discussion of knowledge topics in business and consumer psychology.

In the general discussion section, the authors should clarify how their findings theoretically and empirically advance the scope of existing literature that focuses mainly on CSR of consumer knowledge. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, it is an interesting piece of work concerning consumers’ CSR knowledge and its effects. It is clearly written with sound logic. However, it requires improvement for following points.

1. The structure of the manuscript needs to be improved. Section 1.3 can be rephrased and combined with section 1. 

2. It is suggested to provide data using tables and graphs for all important arguments and conclusions. For examples, (1) The basic information for all variables should be provided in section 3.1 and 3.2. (2) There are no data reported for section 3.4 (e.g., lines 440-459) and section 3.5 (e.g., lines 500-512).

3. It is suggested to add theoretical contribution in section 5 (e.g., 5.1)

 

Considering aforementioned remaining issues, the current version of the manuscript needs minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf