We’re All in This Together: Legitimacy and Coronavirus-Oriented CSR Messaging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting article, the cognitive potential of which I value highly. At the same time, I suggest the authors make a few additions, which in my opinion would increase the value of the manuscript, mainly from the point of view of the reader.
In the introduction, I would indicate the empirical part, indicating more precisely what has been researched and what elements resulting from the study will be used in the further part of the article. It seems to me that this would well underline the empirical value of the manuscript.
The presentation of the demographic data in Table 1 should be clarified. I do not fully understand why they are important and how they affect the research process. Especially that references to this demography are not noticeable in the results.
Tables 2-5 and Figures 1-2 require at least a brief description in the results section. Their presence serves not only to present the data obtained in the study, but should also initially justify the content presented in the section: discussion.
I would supplement the article with clearer information on the possibility of continuing and developing the research.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and feedback on our manuscript. In response to your requests, you’ll see that on p. X we extended the introduction to include an early mention of what we empirically measured in this study. Given the complexity of the constructs, we didn’t want to go into too much detail at this early stage, but instead left those facets for later in the literature review. Still, we agreed that some mention of these operationalizations was warranted.

Regarding the demographics in Table 1, it is common in the PR field to report such data alongside population estimates for the sake of transparency and to allow readers to evaluate the generalizability of the data based on the sample make-up. These factors were not included in the analyses, so their impact is more indirect. We would be happy to remove this table if there are concerns regarding page space, but again, for the sake of transparency we have retained it.

Finally, we are somewhat unclear as to the request regarding descriptions of the tables and figures in the results and discussion sections. While we agree that the text in the results section is rather short, we felt it did provide a brief description of the tables and figures. Additionally, the discussion elaborates on the patterns emerging in the interaction effects and situates these findings within our theoretical framework. We are more than willing to elaborate further on these elements, but we humbly request more detailed guidance as to how and where the current draft falls short of expectations.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting topic and great article. I really like it and would just suggest to engage more in the analysis of the involved CSR reporting - what is the most effective and efficient CSR reporting to boost the legitimacy and the reputation? What respondents want to see in particular? Does really the utilitarian and social contract approach prevail and other (deontological, etc.) approaches are underplayed? What is the role of the trust?

Author Response

Thank you for your time and feedback on our manuscript. We agree with the importance of CSR reporting, and in revising the introduction, have included an element that refers readers to existing literature on the topic as it relates to perceptions of legitimacy. However, we are somewhat reluctant to include aspects of CSR reporting in our analysis, results, and discussion sections as the data collected focuses on reputational perceptions based on front-end CSR messaging rather than back-end CSR reporting. Hence, we feel that the data we have doesn’t afford us the opportunity to engage in an informed discussion of CSR reporting, meaning such a discussion would be largely speculative. That said, we could add some brief suggestions for future research on the role of CSR reporting toward the end of the piece, but first wanted to clarify whether that approach would be amenable.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Introduction. Is not clear the contribution and the research gap. Authors why the research is important from the practical point of view, but they don’t present previous research findings and gaps.

The literature review must be better structured. The theoretical support for the hypothesis is weak, especially regarding the several dimensions of analysis: treatment of customers, employees, and so on. I suggest dividing these sub-hypotheses and place them on the correct please of the LR

Data analysis. Please provide an argumentation for using three-way MANCOVA to test the hypothesis. Please refer to previous studies to support your argumentation.

The paragraph structure must be revised. See, for example, lines 74-79

Author Response

Thank you for your time and feedback on our manuscript. We have amended the introduction section to include a major research gap, stating that CSR efforts have often been linked to legitimacy through reactions to CSR reporting rather than perceptions of the initial CSR communication effort itself.

Additionally, we added two paragraphs explaining our rationale for the use of a three-way MANCOVA to analyze the data.

Lastly, we would like to request more detailed guidance regarding the lack of theoretical support for the hypotheses and research questions. We felt that our inclusion and linking of legitimacy, expectancy violations, and signaling theories provided a strong theoretical grounding for our conceptualization of legitimacy and the role of CSR in advancing that legitimacy among key publics. Does the concern here regard our decision to assess reputation across a variety of dimensions? If so, we elaborated on the existence of several legitimacies across various publics, and we could utilize stakeholder theory to more clearly extend that line of thinking to reputation. However, we wanted to seek additional feedback before engaging in so extensive an overhaul to be sure we would address your concerns appropriately and thoroughly.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Congrats for the revision.