Sustainability and Brand Equity: The Moderating Role of Brand Color and Brand Gender

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It was a pleasure to read and review this research. Based on the results, the authors concluded that green color can be effective for many brands to communicate their sustainability strategies, but iconic colors are more effective for brands with a high level of feminine personality. I think the topic is interesting for a broad range of researchers, especially for those interested in branding. The article is well-written and has a clear structure. The references are current.
Still, I suggest revising the following parts of the manuscript.

1. After reading the authors’ conclusions described in Lines 157-159, a reader would expect at least some discussion on the culture/nationality context in Study 2.
2. I think that relevant information is presented in Lines 292-310. Still, in addition to Chanel, LV and Apple, I suggest adding some insights related to Nike, because Nike is one of the brands that are included in the both authors’ studies.
3. In general, it is not recommended to use a table or a figure that is not cited in the text. Therefore, I would suggest mentioning all the tables and figures in the text of the manuscript.
4. There is no need for including the chapter title within the manuscript in Lines 59-61 because this draws a reader’s attention away from the primary focus of the sentence. To resolve this, I would recommend citing it as a chapter in the book rather than the entire book itself in the reference list (Line 587).
5. The authors should use a consistent writing style for the descriptions of the Research Focus in Table 2. In the current manuscript, the authors use noun-based descriptions for Research Focus in [35] and [36], while using a verb-based description for [31].
6. In Table 3, I would recommend describing the fourth column more clearly. For example, the authors can specify that the number in column refers to rank or position in Top 100.
7. It is unclear what the superscripted “1” next to Nationality (in Table 4) refers to.
8. If Recycling Symbol from Line 356 is the same symbol mentioned in Line 359, the authors should use the exact same terms in both sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of the paper is clear, the title informative and relevant and the research question are clearly outlined.

Attention to citations!!! There are few examples of wrong citation that must be corrected:

-          On the raws 34-35 is written that ” Labrecque, Kapferer, and Abril claimed [3–6] that...”. 3 is Labrecque, L.I.; Milne, G.R., 4 is Labrecque, L.I.; Patrick, V.M.; Milne, G.R, and 6 is Abril, P.S.; Olazábal, A.M.; Cava, A. The idea is that second and third authors deserves credit, too.

-          Lieven [28] appear in text in 5-6 places, but on reference list I founded Lieven, T.; Grohmann, B.; Herrmann, A.; Landwehr, J.R.; van Tilburg, M. The Effect of brand gender on brand 612 equity. Psychol Mark 2014, 31, 371–385, doi:10.1002/mar.20701. Correct citation is Lieven et al. [28].

-          Matt Dunham McDonald’s rolling out green logo in Europe Available online https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34111784 (accessed on May 10, 2023) does not have the year when it was published (2009)

In lines 269-273, the authors mentioned the Top 100 Brands listed by Interbrand. One suggestion is to add the Interbrand website to the reference list, along with a link to the Top 100 Best Global Brands. This would be helpful for readers of academic articles from Sustainability who may not be familiar with this well-known ranking, which is commonly recognized by branding and marketing specialists as well as researchers. Another  suggestion is to use the term used on the Interbrand website, respectively Best Global Brands and to be consistent all over the text. For this version, the authors used ”World's Top 100 Brands”, ” top 100 brands”, ” Top 100 brands”, ” Top 100 Best Global Brands”.

For the information given at the page 69-70 (McDonald's uses yellow and green instead of yellow and red in their European logo to emphasize their sustainable products and business model [16]), I suggest authors to provide more informations about the outcomes of this strategy announced in 2009 either by searching for academic sources measuring the impact of this introduction of green colour or even my providing non-academic sources, but more recent.

There no references in the text regarding Table 2. The authors should explain the reason of including the Table 2 and how are applied the results of Summary Review of Sustainability Research.

The Iconic color column from Table 3 was produced by using Brandcolors.net. I suggest authors to explain more about the reasons for choosing this website.

In the lines 543-545 the authors pointed out that ” that brands belonging to the hedonic category inhibited the use of the color green, suggesting that this should be further analyzed”. There no other previous references about hedonic category or Utilitarian – Hedonic classification before the mentions from the limitation study.

The article is of significant value to the Sustainability journal due to its novelty. The relationship between brands, sustainability, and brand equity has not been adequately explored, making this article a valuable addition. One of its strong points is the inclusion of the perspective on the moderating role of brand color and brand gender. But in order to be published, the authors should address first the extra-explanations that I suggested. The citation format and other minor problems raised must also have to be addressed for the second version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments on the manuscript are as follows:

1) The research problem is adequately formulated and corresponds to a gap in the literature.

2) The literature review is well grounded and has good depth. 

3) However, the argumentation leading to the formulation of the hypotheses needs to be strengthened, as it is very short.

4) The methodology and results of both empirical studies are presented in a correct way, allowing us to clearly understand how the research was conducted and the results obtained.

5) The discussion of the results, conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future research are presented in an adequate manner.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have effectively addressed all the concerns and issues outlined in my initial review. The article possesses noteworthy novelty and holds considerable worth for the Sustainability journal, justifying its publication.